Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Health Authorities

Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with Welsh local government organisations the level of representation the planned unitary authorities should have on health authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I have no plans to alter the present arrangements.

Mr. Llwyd: How does the Minister square last week's appointment of Mrs. Lynette George to the chair of Derwen health trust in Dyfed with the Welsh Office's recent pronouncement that membership of quangos would be open to all and that there would be wide and extensive advertisement of appointments? Does he accept that the appointment was not advertised in the local newspaper that serves Dyfed, Powys and South Gwynedd and that Mrs. George is the wife of a previous Tory parliamentary candidate in Ceredigion? Does he also accept that the process is a complete sham and is wholly unacceptable to the people of Wales, who are not so easily fooled?

Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He should be aware that there is extensive advertising for all public appointments in Wales and that that has resulted in many people putting their name forward for our register of such appointments. I resent his implication about that particular appointment, not least because Mrs. George is well acquainted with health matters and is presently a member of the national health service trust for Ceredigion.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be easier to deal with that question when the Opposition have resolved their differences about the future shape of local government and, in particular, the dispute about the boundary between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, about which my constituents are extremely concerned?

Mr. Jones: I know from my hon. Friend about his constituents' opposition to the proposal. I am also aware, as I think he is, of the way in which the imperialist ambitions of South Glamorgan are hotly resented by the Labour parties in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. I have sympathy for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has continuing difficulties in obtaining agreement among his comrades.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister must be cuckoo if he thinks that merely asking people to put their names forward for authorities introduces an element of democracy into the system in Wales. What matters is not the people who put their names forward but the selection of the people who are appointed, and that selection will remain in the hands of Ministers. There is no democratic accountability or relationship with the new local authorities that have been set up, so will the Minister accept that we do not like his system and wish that the people appointed were more accountable?

Mr. Jones: Accountability never stops because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains answerable at the Dispatch Box to all hon. Members for his actions, including appointments and the activities of those appointed. We welcome recommendations and suggestions from everyone so that we have the broadest choice and my right hon. Friend always tries to appoint the best person to every post.

Student Unions

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to safeguard Welsh interests on the proposed reform of student unions.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the interests of students at Welsh institutions will be fully safeguarded.

Mr. Jones: Is the Minister aware that the excellent newspaper Gair Rhydd which, by the way, features the Secretary of State prominently in this week's edition, will be endangered and will probably have to close as a result of the proposals? What proposals does the Minister have to safeguard the important work of Welsh student unions, which translate so much into Welsh so that there can be equality between the two languages in Welsh institutions? How does the Minister propose that that work will be done in future?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Education Bill does not prevent students or student associations from undertaking any activities, including those that he described. There is no reason why such activities should cease. Students should consider different methods if the Bill prevents them from using such funding. For instance, activities could be funded from personal subscription, fund raising by students or sponsorship from the private funds of universities or colleges, as well as from public funds.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that the development of Welsh language courses in colleges in Wales is not a core activity, as defined by the Bill? Does he believe that it will add to the financial burdens of the majority of the 130,000 students in Wales and that the reforms will totally ignore the special characteristics of Welsh further and higher education and will plunge Welsh student unions into administrative chaos?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not agree, because our proposals will not reduce the resources provided for universities and colleges, which will continue to decide for themselves the total funding that they make available for their student


unions. Clause 22 allows for flexibility in different parts of the United Kingdom. That will permit variations to reflect any differing circumstances, including those in Wales.

Voluntary Organisations

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the last three years.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The latest available figures at outturn prices for direct and indirect grants are £144·9 million for 1990–91, £182·2 million for 1991–92 and £213·7 million for 1992–93.

Sir David Knox: Is not that a cost-effective form of public expenditure? By how much has it increased since 1979? How many organisations receive those grants?

Mr. Jones: I share my hon. Friend's impression of the cost-effectiveness involved. I seem to recollect that during the past financial year, more than 420 voluntary organisations have been assisted in that way and that since the Government came to power, support for voluntary organisations has increased threefold.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will be aware that many voluntary organisations, which run village halls and other community centres in Wales, were disappointed last year when no money was made available under the usual scheme. Does he propose to reinstate that scheme for the present year, so that many excellent local facilities can be properly resourced?

Mr. Jones: We try to consider all applications for financial assistance. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the two-year period, we set aside £2·5 million for the community revival strategy and that, under the strategic development scheme, voluntary organisations will attract 16 per cent. of the total, which is almost £6·5 million.

Job Creation

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he will adopt to create jobs and to bring down unemployment.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Low interest rates, the promotion of Wales as a great manufacturing and service centre and low inflation underpin our policies to promote Wales vigorously and get unemployment down, and they are working—in the past month alone, there were 1,800 more people back in work.

Mr. Jones: With the massive number of 127,000 jobless Welsh people, will the Secretary of State pledge that the Government will protect national and constituency interests in the aerospace industry, bearing in mind the outstanding GATT negotiations and the airbus project? Will he step up his efforts for manufacturing jobs and attack single-parent families less? Will he also work harder to tackle unemployment and engage less in Cabinet intrigue?

Mr. Redwood: I am promoting Wales vigorously—far more vigorously than are Opposition Members. As a result, a lot of investment is coming to this country and our national policies are working, at a time when unemployment is rising on the continent of Europe.
Unemployment in Spain is at 22 per cent., in Germany at 10·5 per cent., in France at 12 per cent., in Italy more than 10 per cent., in the United Kingdom below 10 per cent. and in Wales less than 10 per cent. and falling. Of course I will do anything in my power to carry on the recovery in Wales, because we need more jobs and we shall get more jobs by following Conservative policies.

Mr. Richards: When my right hon. Friend visited Pilkington Optronics in my constituency last Monday, did he get the impression that it was a company bristling with optimism and ideas? Does not that augur well for the future of manufacturing in Wales, which has been helped not least by my right hon. Friend's decision to give the green light to the Rhuddlan bypass?

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful for his kind comments about the bypass scheme. I saw Pilkington Optronics and I saw other companies there at the leading edge of technology, with extremely good manufacturing activities, going for the best in the world and making sure that they win the markets accordingly.
On Saturday, I had the privilege to see the Welsh rugby team sweep magnificently to victory. It was winning for Wales, just as the industrialists of north-east Wales are winning for Wales. I am sure that all hon. Members present will want at least to send our congratulations to the Welsh rugby team.

Mr. Roy Hughes: In regard to the proposed reorganisation of local government in Wales, does the Secretary of State appreciate that many employees in that service are apprehensive about their future employment prospects? Bearing in mind the tremendous service that local government has given to Wales for so many years, will the Secretary of State give an assurance to those employees today that their future is secure?

Mr. Redwood: I can assure the vast majority of people working in local government in Wales that their futures are safe. Their employers will need them even after the change of responsibilities and the introduction of the unitary councils. The vast majority are providing services to the public and they will be as needed in three or four years' time as they are today. However, if there is waste and bureaucracy, we hope that that will be sorted out during the transfer to unitary status. Sensible councils will plan ahead so that they do not need to sack people but can use natural wastage to make the necessary adjustments.

Mr. John Marshall: Has not the Welsh economy benefited from the inward investment that has taken place because of the low corporate tax regime that the Government have encouraged, because the Government refused to leave the European Community, as advocated by the Labour party in 1983, and because they refused to sign up to federalism and the social chapter, as it advocated in 1992?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that our low income tax rates and our low corporation tax rates have been important in attracting investors to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. What is more, were there ever to be the type of assembly that Opposition Members seek, with powers to impose extra taxes, laws and regulations on Wales, that would drive those investors away. That is why we do not want such an assembly. We want Wales to be open for business and winning in the world.

Mr. Ron Davies: It seems that we have a developing tradition of English Members of Parliament who become Secretary of State for Wales being overcome by their own hype. I do not think that any of us in Wales would share the present Secretary of State's views that he made much of a contribution to the marvellous victory that we had on Saturday over Scotland.
Does the Secretary of State realise how dishonest he is being in ignoring last week's devastating news of nearly 1,000 job losses in Wales, most notably at BP Baglan bay and at Wella in Llantrisant? The continuing pattern in Wales is the replacement of full-time jobs with unskilled temporary employment and, despite wages being the lowest in the United Kingdom, unemployment is more than the national average. The number of vacancies is down and unemployment is falling at a slower rate than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
If the Secretary of State wants to get back to basics, why does not he start doing the job that he is being paid to do—arguing for policies that will get Wales back to work? Does not he realise that his petty squabbles with the Prime Minister about personal morality are bringing him into contempt and ridicule and that the people of Wales have to pay the price?

Madam Speaker: Order. If I heard correctly, I understood the hon. Gentleman, in his earlier remarks, to accuse the Secretary of State of being dishonest. I believe that he did so and I should be very grateful if he would amend that comment.

Mr. Davies: I did not accuse the Secretary of State of being dishonest. If I have done so, I withdraw the remark and apologise.

Madam Speaker: I am much obliged.

Mr. Redwood: I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. The text of my remarks will show clearly that I was praising the rugby players for their victory. The victory was theirs and theirs alone, although the whole of Wales takes great delight in their success. It is my job to lead the Welsh team in the industrial and commercial area to equivalent success.

Mr. Rogers: What about jobs?

Mr. Redwood: It was a long question, which included rugby as well as jobs. Of course I saw that some unfortunate job losses were announced over the past month. I also saw many job gains announced. I am pleased to say that the gains outstripped the losses and that unemployment fell. I saw the Royal Opera house announcement, the Calsonic announcement, the Greenberg Glass announcement, the Europressings announcement, the Cardiff Carbides announcement and many others. We need many more such announcements and I will press on to get many more. If there are areas of especial trouble, Welsh Office assistance will, of course, be there in especial quantities.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are currently in employment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Redwood: The current civilian work force in September 1993, the latest date for which we have figures, was 1,119,000 people.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the Development Board for Rural Wales has played a key role in defending jobs within its area? Has he noticed, however, that there appears to be a growing disparity between the board's performance in the Montgomeryshire area, where it is based, and its performance in some other parts of Wales, such as my constituency? Has not the time now come for the board to consider moving its headquarters further south?

Mr. Redwood: I am sure that the board wants to help all the areas for which it is responsible. Its members will see our exchanges today and I trust that it will redouble its efforts in my hon. Friend's constituency. Where the board sites its office is, of course, a matter for it. Again, its members will see my hon. Friend's remarks. Meanwhile, it is a fact that strikes, inflation and interest rates are down, while productivity, output and jobs numbers are up—[Interruption.] Although Opposition Members do not like that, it is the key to our recovery.

Mr. John Morris: Given the recent announcement that 600 jobs will be lost at BP Chemicals at Baglan, coming on top of the imminent loss of hundreds of jobs at Freemans Cigars, will the Secretary of State now reconsider the Government's decision to downgrade Port Talbot and Neath from development status?

Mr. Redwood: Assistance will still be available for various programmes in that area. We came to our best judgment at the time and we got an extremely good deal for Wales—a deal on which Wales can go forward and prosper.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Is not the Government's job in the Principality not directly to seek to increase the number of people in work, but to work to build the right economic framework and climate in which businesses may flourish, something which the Welsh Office has been so successful in doing in recent years?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that the main thing that helps to create jobs is the right economic climate, which is why in all my answers today I have stressed that inflation is down and that productivity is up—the right conditions under which business can trade successfully. There is a job for the Government as well. They need, for example, to pay money to clear the land and to lead regeneration schemes to deal with areas that have been damaged, especially by large nationalised industries. It is the Government's job vigorously to promote Wales as a place in which people can manufacture profitably, as many are discovering for themselves.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the scissors effect worked very well on Saturday, the economic scissors effect—by which part-time jobs in service industries are up in Wales while full-time jobs in manufacturing are going inexorably down—is doing to the Welsh economy what the Prime Minister is supposed to want to do to him?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is as wrong in his quotation from the Prime Minister as he is in his general remarks on the Welsh economy. Rather than making a


good debating point, he cheapens himself by his remarks. Many extra jobs are being created in Wales as a result of our initiatives and those of private investors and they are by no means all part-time jobs or jobs offering lower wages. On my recent tours, I have seen extremely good full-time jobs for men as well as women being added, involving a high degree of skill and good wages.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the dairy industry in Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Dairy farming will continue to make a significant contribution to total agricultural output in Wales. The changes being made in marketing arrangements following the passage of the Agriculture Act 1993 will help to ensure that.

Mr. Carlile: May I make an effort to investigate a little further the Minister of State's platitude? Does he accept that the future of dairy farming in rural Wales will be extremely bleak unless the Milk Marque co-operative is brought into being soon? Will he undertake to make every effort to ensure that it is operating by not later than 1 April? Will he assure the House that not only he but the Secretary of State are committed to the future support of farmers throughout rural Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Of course we are committed to the future support of farmers throughout rural Wales, especially those in the dairy industry. Of course we are all disappointed that the negotiations, which could have involved a vesting day of 1 April, have clearly shown that that cannot be achieved on that date. Meanwhile, the current arrangements will continue.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that there will be a meeting next Monday between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Milk Marque to discuss that issue? Will he give an assurance that there will be representation from the Welsh Office at that meeting and that it will press for as early as possible a vesting date to remove the uncertainty of the matter? Is he aware that every month that goes by until the matter is resolved means a real loss to the income of dairy farmers?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I can confirm that there will be a meeting next Monday and, as my right hon. Friend has responsibility for agriculture in Wales, he will be one of the Ministers involved in determining the Milk Marketing Board's scheme of organisation. Given my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role, the hon. Member will know that the decision cannot be pre-judged and that, of course, I must refrain from making any detailed comments on matters related to those negotiations.

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister should come clean on the matter. It is a question not of the negotiations having failed, but of the Government vetoing the proposals that were put to them by Milk Marque. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that he understands the deeply damaging nature of the decision to reject Milk Marque's proposals. Is not it the case that the Government know that that decision and the decision to cut £25 million from hill livestock compensatory allowances will undermine confidence in the

future of agriculture, but that they are proceeding anyway because, in their view, public sector intervention in any industry is ideologically unacceptable?

Sir Wyn Roberts: On that last point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that total support is up, despite the reduction in HLCAs. He has clearly misunderstood what I said. No one has been talking of rejecting the Milk Marketing Board's scheme. Nor did I say that the negotiations have failed. In fact, I said clearly that negotiations were to be resumed on 24 January, next Monday. It is important that whatever new arrangement is made should be in accordance with the Agriculture Act 1993. It is in the best interests of producers, consumers and dairy farming as a whole that we should have the right and proper arrangements.

Toxic Waste

Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding has been earmarked in 1994–95 for the removal of toxic waste deposits from former industrial sites in Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Approximately £12 million.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that throughout industrial Wales many people are forced to live alongside sites that contain industrial toxic waste? Is he further aware that many of those sites, such as that at Coedely in my constituency, resulted from the activities of the National Coal Board and British Coal, yet the same directors who are running down British Coal, who are closing mines and who closed the mine at Coedely and others will be allowed to pick the cherries of the industry without having to pick up the cost of the filthy tips? The cost of putting them right will fall on hard-pressed local authorities such as Mid-Glamorgan. When will the Minister stand up for the people of Wales and ensure that money is made available to remove this filth from our landscape?

Mr. Jones: As I have said, approximately £12 million is available for such measures in the current year. I understand that the specific case of Coedely is a matter for the Welsh Development Agency, for the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Taff Ely borough council and for Mid-Glamorgan county council, which are giving it the most serious consideration and are ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in hand. I remind him that, under the first programme for the valleys, 2,600 acres throughout the valleys of south Wales have been cleared—a record which can compare with the best in Europe.

Mr. Dickens: What steps has the Welsh Office taken to identify contaminated land across Wales?

Mr. Jones: The Welsh Office is keenly interested in this matter. It has already conducted two reviews and the matter will continue to receive its closest attention.

Disabled Facilities Grant

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of people in Wales currently waiting for a disabled facilities grant; and how many have waited for more than two years.

Mr. Redwood: The figures are not held centrally because it is a local authority-administered scheme.

Mr. Wardell: Will the Secretary of State collect those figures and, when he does so, will he accept that it is not appropriate for elderly people to be discharged from hospital only to find that they must wait two or sometimes three years for a shower or a stairlift to be installed in their property? Will he review his policy, under which he transferred the only mandatory housing grant from the supplementary credit allowance to the basic credit allowance system? The sooner he does so, the better community care will be.

Mr. Redwood: What an indictment of Labour local government in Wales. I give it more discretion and more money, yet the hon. Gentleman says that it does not meet its targets. The targets are very clear. Someone who applies for such a grant should receive it within six months of a proper application being submitted. I shall give the hon. Gentleman some idea of the amount of money that is involved: in 1992–93, £26 million was made available to local authorities, but they spent less than £10 million under this heading, which is the only statutory requirement in the £26 million block. That is their expression of priorities. They are letting down disabled people in Wales and it is time that they did a better job. For next year, I am increasing the amount of money that I make available for disabled facilities and schemes by £6·6 million and I hope that local government will be with me and will put its money where the hon. Gentleman's mouth is.

Environmental Priorities

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his environmental priorities for 1994.

Mr. Redwood: A little change of tone now, Madam Speaker. I see that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is pleased that I am answering this question personally—he wants my personal attention for these important policies.
My environmental priorities are proper environmental protection, vigorous urban renewal, removing dereliction where it is a scar on the landscape, promoting energy efficiency and sensible planning to preserve the best in Wales while allowing sensible development.

Mr. Hughes: I was pleased to hear that the last two of the Secretary of State's priorities related to the subject of wind power, which is a controversial matter in Wales. As 10 million homes could be partially powered by wind power by the end of the century and as 200,000 homes are already powered—

Mr. Rogers: Especially in Southwark.

Mr. Hughes: Calm down.
As 200,000 homes are already powered by wind power, will the Secretary of State do all that he can to ensure that the guidelines for wind power development are introduced quickly because, in sensitive areas of Wales and elsewhere throughout the United Kingdom, people are trying to exploit the position to everybody's disadvantage whereas others are proposing good schemes that would be to the energy and personal advantage of the people of Wales?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman delivered, almost with a straight face, a question about wind power which, for the Liberal party, is quite an achievement. After all, the Liberals are experts on that.
However, I will ensure that we look again to see whether we can produce guidelines that might help in that situation. That could be a productive way forward, but we must be sensitive about the environment in which these structures might be placed. The main problem is the visual intrusion. I have asked the wind power industry to consider ways in which it could improve the structures to make them less obvious on the horizon. I believe that that would help. People are sometimes worried about noise. The structures that I have seen have not been too offensive, but clearly a planning committee must consider the wind noise issue before granting permission. I will see whether I can clarify the matter further in the way that the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State included in his priorities avoiding dereliction and positive planning policies. Is he aware of the anger and anxiety in Morriston about the potential long-term pollution dangers from Cwmrhydyceirw quarry which stem directly from the original planning permission in respect of which the Welsh Office overrode very strong objections from Swansea city council, which was the planning authority? Will he therefore accept responsibility now for what has happened and be ready to compensate Swansea city council if it were to decide to rescind that planning permission and also give the council money to make good the damage that has been caused?

Mr. Redwood: I should like to send a written answer to the hon. Gentleman because it is a serious question. I believe that I need to research the facts more before I give a straight answer.

British Geological Survey

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future of the Wales office of the British Geological Survey at Aberystwyth.

Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations expressing concern at the proposed closure of the survey's district office at Aberystwyth.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister recognise that the Wales office of the British Geological Survey is a significant component in the infrastructure of Wales as it provides important information to local authorities, to developers and to the Welsh Office—when it chooses to ask for it? Does he accept that it is vital for economic development in Wales as it provides information on matters such as energy and mineral extraction? Does he also recognise that it will be impossible to provide that service properly if the archive that is presently located at Aberystwyth is removed from Wales together with the interpretive expertise at that office? Does he recognise that the removal of that office should not be an option? Should not the Welsh Office properly intervene to ensure that the office survives and can develop in future?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the office at Aberystwyth is part of the British Geological Survey, whose parent council is the Natural Environment Research Council, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have made inquiries with my right hon. Friend


the Chancellor of the Duchy and he will provide me with further information. I am due to see the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who will, I am sure, bring his representations very much to my notice. Meanwhile, I assure him that the mapping needs of Wales will continue to be met by the survey. I understand that those employed at Aberystwyth will, for the most part, be transferred to the centre at Nottingham.

Arts Council for Wales

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he is making for the Arts Council for Wales for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Subject to parliamentary approval, the council will receive grant in aid of £13·541 million in 1994–95. That is 4 per cent. above provision in the current year.

Mr. Evans: Did my right hon. Friend see the gloomy prognostications of a mythical Member of the House, who was described in The Western Mail as being the Member for Caernarfon and Ceredigion and Pembroke, North? Will my right hon. Friend underline and appreciate how much of a welcome there is in Wales for the positive announcement that he has just made in place of that mistaken gloom?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to do so. My hon. Friend is correct. The story about a reduction in the Arts Council for Wales grant was totally untrue. As I have said, there will be a 4 per cent. increase. I see the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) brandishing a headline about the Welsh national opera company. I am pleased to tell him that the Arts Council for Wales element of grant will increase by 2 per cent. next year.

Manufacturing Employment

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many manufacturing jobs there were in the valleys initiative districts in (a) 1987 and (b) at the latest available date.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The census of employment shows that there were 62,300 people employed in manufacturing jobs in the programme for the valleys area in 1987, and 57,400 in 1991, the latest year for which census of employment data are available.

Mr. Hain: Does not the Minister's reply give the lie to the way in which the Secretary of State is talking up what has been happening in the valleys? It is a devastating indictment of the Government's policy that full-time adult male jobs, predominantly in manufacturing, for which people might earn about £300 a week are being replaced by part-time jobs for which one is lucky to receive £100 a week. There will be a devastating future for the valleys if the policy continues.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and I am surprised at what he says. During that period, the valleys fared better than Great Britain as a whole. There was an 11 per cent. fall in manufacturing employment between 1988 and 1992 in the programme for the valleys area, but in Great Britain, over the same period, the fall was 14 per cent. That is a fair measure of the value of the programme for the valleys.
As for unemployment generally, I am sure that even Opposition Members will be glad to hear that unemployment is coming down faster in the programme for the valleys area than it is in the rest of Wales and indeed in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Mr. Asil Nadir

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the case against Mr. Nadir.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Crown is ready to proceed. Mr. Nadir should return to this country forthwith.

Mr. Winnick: He should indeed, but in view of all the allegations that have been made about the Nadir case, has not the time come for an independent inquiry into all aspects of the case? Of course, such an inquiry would examine the very close relationship between the Tory party and Mr. Nadir. Will the Solicitor-General try to persuade the Prime Minister to ensure that all the moneys that have been donated by Mr. Nadir to the Tory party will be refunded to the creditors? Surely that is the least that the Law Officers should be doing.

The Solicitor-General: This is very old hat. Calls for an inquiry have been made time and again. An inquiry was fixed. A date was fixed in October for a trial at the Central Criminal court which Mr. Nadir should have attended. He did not attend. He should put his arguments in front of a British jury and let them determine the issue. A British jury should be the inquirers in this issue.

Mr. Ashby: As the Serious Fraud Office wrongly and improperly got hold of all the defence papers in the Nadir case and had a chance to peruse them, is there any chance that Mr. Nadir could have a fair trial?

The Solicitor-General: The view that the Serious Fraud Office got hold of all Mr. Nadir's private and personal papers is totally misconceived. This matter has been dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in correspondence with the previous solicitors of Mr. Nadir. There were just a number of papers. They were extracted at an early stage. When Mr. Nadir comes back to this country, the issue will be put in front of the trial judge by the Crown. There really is no excuse for Mr. Nadir staying away.

Criminal Law

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what are his priorities for the discharge of his duties to enforce the criminal law during 1994.

The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General's priority is to continue to work with the Director of Public Prosecution and the Serious Fraud Office to ensure the robust and effective prosecution of criminal offences by the prosecuting authorities.

Mr. Hughes: Given the provisional findings of the district auditor with regard to Westminster city council last week, the allegations about Wandsworth and, for that matter, the findings with regard to Tameside, will the


Solicitor-General undertake that it will be a priority for his Department to investigate whether, in addition to any breach of the law that is currently being investigated by the auditor, there has been a criminal conspiracy in any of those places wrongly to spend public money for party political ends?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should be slow to equate provisional findings with fact. The auditor made it plain that he was minded to find certain things, subject to the respondents being given an opportunity to show otherwise. They will be given that opportunity and will have the possibility of explaining to the district auditor that their behaviour was lawful. It would be wrong to speculate about the outcome. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific request, if he has evidence of a criminal offence, he should place it before the police and the matter will be rigorously pursued.

Mr. Rathbone: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the difficulties which were identified and reported in the newspapers over the weekend about an important and large drugs case. Can he give some reassurance that there is the necessary co-ordination of activities between the police, the Law Officers and Customs and Excise? In so far as there is a case to be brought, can he be wary of those siren voices which say that indictments must be made in relation to seizures at port of entry? It is extremely important in many instances to allow such consignments to go to their destinations so that we can track down and bring to trial the big boys in such deals?

The Solicitor-General: This case was dealt with properly. All decisions were taken by Customs and Excise, which is an independent prosecuting authority. The Attorney-General's limited role in the case was entirely proper and in response to an approach from defence counsel. The decision to drop the case against Mr. Charrington was taken by the commissioners of Customs and Excise. Two defendants are to be retried in June. Hon. Members may wish to be circumspect about their comments, bearing in mind the fact that those two cases are sub judice.

Mr. John Morris: Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the Attorney-General was told all the facts concerning Mr. Charrington? Who was present at the meeting of defence and prosecution counsel, which the Attorney-General chaired? Can the Solicitor-General assist the House as to why a local news agency was urged not to publicise details of the story?

The Solicitor-General: I am not responsible, nor is my right hon. and learned Friend, for reports in local newspapers. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the matter was properly investigated. As I said, there was a meeting which was requested by counsel for Mr. Charrington. That meeting was chaired by the Attorney-General, and counsel for the prosecution and I were present. The matter was dealt with properly. As I said, the prosecution was taken by Customs and Excise. That Department took all the material decisions about the conduct of the case.

Lloyd's

Mr. Hain: To ask the Attorney-General when he has been consulted on prosecutions in the Lloyd's insurance market.

The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General has not been consulted about any such prosecutions. He has given instructions that I should deal with any matter in connection with Lloyd's which arises in his Departments.

Mr. Hain: Does the Minister agree that in Lloyd's recently there has been well-documented evidence of insider trading, criminal activity and fraud, and that the Government have treated the whole corruption of the Lloyd's insurance market with a cavalier disregard which contrasts with the way in which they pursue ordinary citizens who may top up their social security benefits with a bit of part-time gardening or something similar? Are there not two standards—one for the rich and one for the poor?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman addresses me as a Minister. I am a Law Officer of the Crown and I have duties in respect of the public interest which other Ministers do not have.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about Lloyd's. Where there has been evidence of dishonesty, investigations have been rigorously pursued by the regulatory and the prosecuting authorities. The Serious Fraud Office is pursuing two cases which involve Lloyd's and the Crown Prosecution Service is pursuing one.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is extremely important for all hon. Members to consider carefully what they say about Lloyd's insurance market? Clearly, untoward things have gone on in Lloyd's during the past year or two, but there is a particular responsibility on the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) to check his facts before he makes wild allegations. Shortly after the general election, the hon. Gentleman released to the press a list of a number of seats where hon. Members were, he said, names at Lloyd's. That list included my parliamentary seat, because the hon. Gentleman had riot noticed that my predecessor had retired. I am not a name at Lloyd's and the hon. Gentleman, despite being made aware of that fact, has refused to apologise either to me or to my predecessor, Sir Peter Blaker.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Neath apparently is not very well informed, but there is not much that is new about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid (Population Activities)

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the total aid programme is devoted to population activities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): About £28·6 million or 1·55 per cent. of the total aid programme was identified as being spent directly on population activities in the calendar year 1992. There is, in addition, much spent through the multilateral institutions.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Government stated in the United Kingdom report to the International Conference on Development and Population that development assistance "remains too low". What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to increase resources and, more importantly, to encourage new donor agencies, particularly in the European Union, where countries have not previously contributed aid in that area?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government continue to encourage the mobilisation of additional resources for population in all suitable international forums, which must include the European Community. My hon. Friend referred to the conference on population, which is in Cairo this year. That provides opportunities for reminding and encouraging greater commitment to population issues.

Mr. Worthington: Does not the Minister think that the people of sub-Saharan Africa, where the population doubles every 25 years, have the same right to choose the size of their families as do the people of Italy, where the population doubles every 3,500 years?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we want policies which encourage people to reach decisions by choice, not by chance. The purpose of all our policies is to give people, and women in particular, the right information and assistance to come to their own decisions about the size of their families.

Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that last November the United States State Department established a global action committee? Is he further aware that one of that committee's objectives is to give full access to contraception for all people across the globe by 2000? Does my hon. Friend share that objective and, if so, what percentage of the ODA budget should be allocated towards such a programme?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are always loth to adopt specific targets, but we certainly share the objective which my hon. Friend is encouraging. It is significant to remind my hon. Friend that British ODA aid for population has increased by about 60 per cent. during the past four years.

Aid Policy

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the main change in direction in the use of the resources available for overseas aid in the year 1994–95.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The priority objectives for the aid programme for 1994–95 were set out in the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development at Chatham House on 18 October 1993, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Pike: In that speech, the Minister for Overseas Development said that the poorest nations were unable to benefit fully under the Trinidad terms and that there was a need to extend and improve those terms. In the year ahead, do the Government intend to do that for the poorest and most needy nations in the world?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This is an area of policy in the world in which Britain has always led. We launched the terms in 1990. Eighteen countries, including 13 in Africa,

have so far benefited. We have also relieved developing countries of £1 billion of aid debt burden. We are continuing to examine debt relief in conjunction with the Paris club.

Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend agree that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have committed themselves to the Trinidad terms and argued strongly at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and the World bank meeting in Washington for not only the Trinidad terms but the extended Trinidad terms, to which the Government are also committed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The British Government, and in particular the two members of the Government to whom my hon. Friend referred, can take the fullest possible credit for the Trinidad terms. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the Trinidad terms himself. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Clarke: If everything in the garden is so lovely, will the Minister explain why only last week we had an announcement of 47 redundancies of scientific personnel at Chatham? Does he accept that is a direct result of the real cut in overseas aid by the Government, including a cut confirmed in the last Budget? Given that 47 people are to lose their jobs and that some of the poorest countries in the world benefit from their crucial scientific research, where is the Government's strategy for any development for the poorest of this universe?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept that the job losses at Chatham are a direct result of some suggestion that the Government's aid programme is not substantially increasing. It has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past six years. Of course, there will be redeployment within the aid budget and I suspect that that is what is happening at Chatham. I or my right hon. and noble Friend will write to the hon. Gentleman to give him further briefing on that.

Mr. Brandreth: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read UNICEF's latest report on the state of the world's children? It reminds us that, while much progress has been made, disease still claims some 8 million children's lives each year. That is far more than famine or warfare. Will his priorities include the UNICEF priority of the elimination of disease, especially diarrhoea and pneumonia in children?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British aid programme is concerned with the elimination of disease, with particular emphasis on assistance to the poorest countries.

Development Assistance

Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the current position with the general agreement on tariffs and trade for the United Kingdom programme of development assistance.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We welcome the successful outcome of the Uruguay round, which potentially can do more than anything else to boost economic growth in the developing world.

Ms Quin: What plans does the Minister or his Department have to examine the position of countries which it is forecast will not do well out of the GATT agreement? I am thinking in particular of African countries south of the Sahara. Is not that something which his Department should examine urgently in conjunction with the Minister's European counterparts? What will he do to make sure that our aid and trade policies complement and do not contradict each other?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The conclusion of the Uruguay round is of benefit to the world as a whole. It is not a zero sum gain. Everyone could benefit from it, including developing countries. However, the hon. Lady has touched on a point that was anticipated. In the short term, some developing countries that are net food importers will have difficulties. The Uruguay round anticipated that difficulty and the agreement includes provisions to assist those countries. The important thing for the developing world is

that it will have better market access to the prosperous countries of the world and will face lower protection in those countries in domestic agricultural products, which is what the poor world wants to export to us.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it the case that, as a result of GATT, developing countries will be able to increase their exports to the extent that the revenue that they will receive therefrom is greater than the aid programmes of the entire western world and Japan put together? Is not that important, because it will allow those countries to get away from the begging-bowl mentality so favoured by Opposition Members?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Various studies have concluded that the developing world earns three times as much from trade as it does from aid and that third-world countries will benefit to the tune of some $78 billion per annum once the effects of the agreement have worked through.

Points of Order

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Kaufman on a point of order.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My point of order arises out of the Prime Minister's evidence to the Scott inquiry this morning, but I raise it with you, Madam Speaker, because it relates to the Prime Minister's dealings with Members of this House and with Government evidence to the Select Committees of the House.
The Prime Minister this morning told the Scott inquiry that he did not know until November 1992 that the guidelines with regard to the embargo on arms to Iraq had been changed four years earlier, in 1988. In a letter to me dated 17 February 1992, the Prime Minister said:
Let us get the facts straight … Guidelines laying down which types of equipment could be licensed for export, and which could not were first introduced in 1980, were revised and made more stringent in 1984, and were announced to the House by Geoffrey Howe in 1985. The guidelines announced by Geoffrey Howe remained in force until the invasion in 1990 when they were replaced by a total embargo … The guidelines were enforced carefully and strictly through interdepartmental machinery established for the purpose.
The Prime Minister today has confirmed that, in fact, the guidelines were not those of 1985 but were changed in 1988.
I raise the matter with you, Madam Speaker, for two reasons. The first is that, when the Prime Minister was challenged on 16 November 1992 about his failure to inform me in his letter of 17 February 1992 about the change in the guidelines of 1988, he did not say as he said to the Scott inquiry today that he did not give that information because he did not know. Rather, he made it known through 10 Downing street that the information had been given to a Select Committee of the House—the Trade and Industry Select Committee—on 28 January—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the point of order that he wishes me to deal with. Will he now come to that point?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, of course, Madam Speaker. There are two parts to this point of order relating to you as Speaker of the House.
The first is that the Prime Minister's office announced that the change in the guidelines, which the Prime Minister now denies he knew, was made known to a Select Committee of this House of Commons on 28 January 1992, and that therefore the Prime Minister now appears to be resiling from information given to a Select Committee of the House of Commons which Ministers are required to give in good faith.
Secondly, the Prime Minister failed to give me, as a Member of the House, the information which was available to the Select Committee, not on the grounds that he did not know that that information was available, but on the grounds that everybody knew that that information was available.
The statement made by the Prime Minister at the Scott inquiry today is not compatible with information given to a House of Commons Select Committee, nor is it compatible with information given to me as a Member of the House of Commons. Therefore, at least one of the three statements made by the Prime Minister cannot be true.
I therefore ask that you, Madam Speaker, require the Prime Minister to make a statement clarifying the matter for the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that, when Lord Justice Scott has made his report, there will be ample opportunities to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, the answers that Ministers give to more detailed points arising during the course of the inquiry are a matter for those Ministers.
I do not give procedural advice from the Chair, but I should make it clear that any charge that Members might have been deliberately misled can only be made in the proper form and not suggested in a point of order.

Lady Olga Maitland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that today, in the Jubilee Room in the Palace of Westminster, a meeting was addressed by members of Sinn Fein, an organisation that sponsors terrorism? I would like to express my deep outrage that such a meeting took place. It is—

Hon. Members: Is this a point of order?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is raising a point of order with me.

Lady Olga Maitland: I will come to it.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must come to it now. I am not interested in her emotions about this matter.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is it in order for such a meeting to take place in the Palace of Westminster, when hon. Members have been deeply offended by it and when so many hon. Members have been killed or maimed by the IRA? Would you give guidelines to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that such meetings cannot be held until the IRA ceases its violence?

Mr. David Trimble: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw attention to the fact that this is the second time that an attempt has been made to hold a meeting to convey the particular information that was conveyed this morning, even though it was published more than a month ago in Belfast? On the first occasion, the Home Secretary issued an exclusion order against the invited speaker on the ground that that person was involved in terrorism. That view was shared by the President of the United States, who banned that same person on the ground that he was directing terrorism at a high level.
In view of the close connection between the meeting and the preparation, instigation and commission of acts of terrorism, is this not a matter of concern to the House?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should be raising a point of order that is of concern to me.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Madam Speaker: I see that Mr. Corbyn is standing. As the House is aware, it is not my habit to take constant points of order on one issue. As I believe that the hon. Gentleman used his name to book the Committee Room, I must obviously hear his point of order. That will be the last point of order on that issue, because I am ready to respond.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to use this point of order to thank you for


allowing us to use that room and to thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for attending the press conference to hear what members of Sinn Fein had to say. I hope that that meeting will hasten the peace process in Northern Ireland.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should draw to the attention of all hon. Members the fact that guidelines on the booking of Committee Rooms are available from the Serjeant at Arms' Office. Hon. Members are entitled to book Committee Rooms in connection with a parliamentary subject, providing the relevant rules and regulations are followed, as I understand they were in this case.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 12 December, you certified that the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill was a matter relating exclusively to Scotland. On Thursday, however, at column 341, I asked the Leader of the House whether that Bill would follow Scottish procedure, whereby the Bill's Second Reading, Standing Committee stage and Report could be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee. He said that he had some difficulty in pursuing that suggestion, because the usual channels of communication had broken down.
If the Leader of the House has a genuine difficulty, does that not change your relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93, to ensure that matters which you have decided and which relate exclusively to Scotland can be decided by Scottish Members of Parliament?
In The Sunday Times yesterday, Government sources were quoted as saying how many Members of Parliament who will serve on the Standing Committee, and even gave the names of some Members. That is before a vote on Second Reading, and before the Committee of Selection has even met.
There is outrage in Scotland about the idea that Scottish local government can be gerrymandered by the votes of English Conservative Members of Parliament. Can you assist Scottish Members and offer us some protection?

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some notice of his point of order. Actually, my relationship with Standing Orders 92 and 93 to which he refers is not changed. Standing Order 93 makes it clear that only a Minister of the Crown may move to refer a Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading.
May I help the hon. Gentleman further? If he has in mind further scrutiny once the Bill has been read a Second time, may I suggest that he discusses with the Public Bill Office during the course of today the alternatives that might be available to him, because, as he well knows, it is not the practice of the Chair to give procedural advice across the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a totally different aspect of the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), Madam Speaker, may I bring to your attention the problem of Members of this House attending the Scott inquiry? Whereas, when civil servants were being interviewed, I was received with total courtesy at Buckingham gate, the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), had to queue for an hour and a quarter this morning in very cold

conditions on the grounds that a place could not be reserved for Members of the House who had given notice of their desire to attend.
Apparently, an agreement has been reached that selected members of the press will be allowed reserved seats. I do not complain about that, but, if members of the press have reserved seats, surely Members of the House with direct responsibilities in relation to the inquiry should also be afforded the courtesy of seats at Buckingham gate.

Madam Speaker: I know nothing about agreements for visitors' or press tickets to the Scott inquiry. I am sure that the House will support me in saying that I have sufficient responsibilities in relation to parliamentary duties in the House, without looking for reserved seats for Members, however important they may be, at an outside inquiry.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can assist me with the procedures that are called into question by a press release issued today by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is in his place, which has been advised to me by an estimable local paper, the Largs and Millport Weekly News. The press release opens with the words:
Speaking in the House of Commons debate on the reform of local government in Scotland".
That is presumption beyond belief, because you and I know that, although the hon. Member for Ayr has many talents, second sight is not one of them. Is not that a preemption of your rights, Madam Speaker?
I have no wish to prolong this point of order, so I shall not read the hon. Gentleman's press speech. I have no wish to have him sent away to write another, because I doubt whether his joined-up writing could handle it. The press release goes on to attack other hon. Members—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need go no further. I think that I have got his point. Now, what does Mr. Gallie have to say?

Mr. Phil Gallie: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did not have the courtesy to advise me that he was going to refer to me on this occasion. Had he had a copy of the press release, he would have seen that it was clearly embargoed until 10 pm tonight, at which time I could have confirmed whether I had been called to speak. It was my understanding that that was common practice, and that the hon. Gentleman had certainly used such a practice himself.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: No, I can deal with this. I have heard enough.
I deprecate the hon. Gentleman's action, as I would if it were any hon. Member, of any party. If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye tonight, he can be absolutely certain that I shall check what he has to say against delivery. Could we not end points of order on that note?

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Do you recall, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) did exactly the same but without the embargo?

Madam Speaker: I have just deprecated the possibility that any hon. Member of any party might do that. It certainly did not happen in my time as a Back Bencher, and I wish that we could get back to those good old days.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), but no doubt its content will arise during the debate.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today's debate marks a major staging post in the long journey towards the reform of local government in Scotland. It is right that the journey should be a long one, for the reform of Scottish local government is a major undertaking, which will have far-reaching implications for the people of Scotland. That is why the Government have, over the past three years, carried out the most thorough preparation, research and consultation before laying the Bill before the House.
There have been two major consultation papers on the structure now proposed, followed by a White Paper. There have been further consultation papers, on internal management, tourism, water and sewerage, the children's reporter service, and costs, and the issues have been extensively debated on the Floor of the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee. Now we have the opportunity for further thorough debate as we take our reform proposals through Parliament and make them a reality. All that is as it should be.
Local government plays a unique and vital part in the political, democratic and administrative life of Scotland. As a provider—or, increasingly, as an organiser—of services, local government touches the lives of all of us, having responsibility for many key services, including education, social work, housing and many more on which the quality of people's lives depends.
In democratic terms, local government provides a local focus for people's wishes, needs and aspirations. It is also Scotland's largest employer, employing more than a quarter of a million people and it is responsible for current expenditure approaching £6·5 billion per annum, and capital expenditure of about £1·5 billion. That works out at about £1,800 of total expenditure for every man, woman and child in the country.
It is essential that an institution of this size, importance and cost should be structured in such a way as to allow it to carry out its functions with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness, and in such a way as to provide Scotland with a source of robust and relevant local democracy. That is why we are debating this Bill today.
Over the years, the role of local government has inevitably changed as the world around it has moved on. Periodically, it has also been necessary to restructure local government to ensure that it has remained in a position effectively to fulfil its role. Experience clearly shows, however, that the timing of any restructuring is vital. Synchronising the change with the changing external environment is essential if local government is not to fall behind the times and become seriously damaged as a result.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Secretary of State considered whether the gerrymandering proposed in the Bill is worse than the accusations of gerrymandering in Westminster? Lady Porter is accused of gerrymandering only a single council, whereas the Secretary of State is proposing to gerrymander an entire country.
Can the Secretary of State honestly tell the House that he would have been happy if the leaders of any of the other political parties in Scotland had had the right or the desire to draw their own boundary lines on a local government map of Scotland? Would he have been happy with that process?

Mr. Lang: I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charge, and I look forward to debating such matters further with him in Committee.
In 1975, the change came too late. The old local government system had reached a parlous state, and the result was that momentum was lost in key services for a number of years on either side of the reform process. There was a widespread recognition of the need for major surgery. It was not for nothing that the very first words of Lord Wheatley's report were:
something is seriously wrong with local government in Scotland".

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: I would like to make a little progress first; then I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The evidence is now plainly there that, despite the Wheatley reform, something is still seriously wrong with local government in Scotland. From the time when the two-tier system was first conceived, its long-term validity was called into question. Reporting in 1969, the Wheatley commission, while ultimately recommending a two-tier system, acknowledged that
an all-purpose system has obvious advantages. It is simple to understand and to operate … The problems … of ensuring that functions which go together can be properly co-ordinated with one another simply do not arise, because all services are under one authority".
Those are prophetic words. Reporting in January 1981, the Stodart committee of inquiry into local government in Scotland—on which the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) served—considered existing arrangements less than six years after the introduction of the two-tier system, and found a great deal of dissatisfaction with it, particularly among local authorities.
The extent of dissatisfaction among local authorities led Stodart to state in his report:
We must take note of this early stage in our Report of the substantial body of opinion—not least among some local authorities—which maintains the belief that only the creation of all or at least most purpose authorities throughout the country will produce a wholly satisfactory system of local government.

Mr. Alistair Darling: Is not the Secretary of State aware of the concern that some of the smaller local authorities that he proposes to set up will not be able to provide the full range of services in, for example, education and social work? A profusion of quangos and local boards will inevitably result from his proposal, which will be expensive and will not provide services efficiently. That is a heavy price to pay simply for the sake of creating a few Tory-controlled councils.

Mr. Lang: It is right that, if a small local authority may not be able to provide all services at its own hand, it should have access to a neighbouring authority that can assist it. The structure that we are contemplating should enable us to do that.
In his report, Lord Wheatley said, on precisely the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman:
Such a large area"—
referring to Strathclyde—
would offer no educational advantages; it would be administratively unwieldy; and it would raise the question whether, with one education authority covering almost half the population of Scotland, it was really worth while to have local education authorities at all.
Clearly, therefore, there was anxiety when the present regional structure was set up that education would be handled at too high a level and by authorities that were too large.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Secretary of State is talking about small authorities. Has he grasped the fact that the smallest authority that he is proposing, to be named East Lothian and Berwickshire, is not wanted by either the people of East Lothian or those of Berwickshire? Can we hope to hear of any concession on that, in view of the overwhelming feeling of the people of East Lothian and Berwickshire that they do not want that type of authority?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill contains a map that is largely unchanged from that in the White Paper, although there is a change affecting Prestonpans, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. I look forward to debating those borders in Committee.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Dr. John Reid: rose—

Mr. Robert Maclennan: rose—

Mr. Lang: I must make a little progress; then I shall happily give way again.
The issues referred to by both Lord Wheatley and later by Stodart have not gone away over the years, and that is little wonder, for the problems endemic within the present structure are profound. The division of responsibilities within the tiers of the current structure is arbitrary, in some cases it is bizarre, and in many sectors it is far from clear. Not only is the consumer of local services confused; the services that he or she consumes are not delivered as efficiently or as effectively as they should be.
Beneath its inflated rhetoric, the Labour party has often highlighted the shortcomings of the present two-tier system and the potential for a single-tier structure to remedy them. In its policy document, published in 1990, the Scottish Labour party said:
The continuing widespread confusion about what tier carries out what functions undermines accountability. All-purpose councils facilitate the move to an integrated approach to service provision and also decentralisation through a local one-door approach …
I absolutely agree with those sentiments.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I wonder whether he can help me. Representatives of Cunninghame district council, including the chief executive Mr. Bernard Devine, have been

quoted locally as saying that the Secretary of State has ruled out an all-Ayrshire option. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is shaking his head.
Yet the Minister of State told a deputation that I took to see him from Cumnock and Doon Valley and Kyle and Carrick that the Government would consider all possible options—including the all-Ayrshire option—in Committee and has also said so publicly since. Will the Secretary of State put it on record that all options, including the all-Ayrshire option, can be considered by the Government and by hon. Members in Committee and on Report?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that all options for boundary changes can be considered in Committee—that is what that stage is about. I recall that the original recommendations of the Wheatley commission were for fewer than 50 local authorities, but we ended up with 65, and quite a different map from the one it suggested.
I am talking about the advantages of a single tier. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman emphasised his view in the House as recently as the debate on the Loyal Address, and that he is among those on both sides of the House who see merit in a single-tier structure.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State's references to Lord Wheatley are particularly apposite. If he is so confident of the virtues of the scheme he is proposing, why has he not established an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, to judge the merits of his proposals?
Similarly, if the right hon. Gentleman is pleased with the nature of consultation that has been afforded, why have the Government rejected the responses in East Lothian and north-east Fife, for example, where people have rejected the very proposals that he is seeking to persuade the House about because they do not regard them as an appropriate way to deal with the problems that he has identified?

Mr. Lang: As I have already explained, the Wheatley commission did not lead to the detail that ended up in the reform carried out in the early 1970s, which departed substantially from what that commission had recommended. Nor do I see any evidence of widespread support and enthusiasm for some of the commission's recommendations south of the border. In 1975, we upgraded the structure of our local authority system to an extent that reduced 426 authorities to 65, and we created a much more coherent structure than that which existed south of the border, so the work is largely done.
As far as the proposals for Fife, the Borders or any other part of Scotland are concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lang: No, I must make a little more progress; then I shall no doubt end up by giving way again.
The commitment to a single tier of local government is generally agreed by all parties, and was included in their election manifestos. What is surprising is how quickly the Opposition parties have reneged on their election promises. However, the present system is flawed and is acknowledged to be so—even by Opposition Members—and those flaws are wide-ranging.
The system that we have today is unduly and unnecessarily expensive. On the mainland of Scotland, we


have a superstructure of 53 districts and nine regions. Over the years, with many changes to the pattern of service delivery, the role of many districts has become inadequate and the scale of the unnecessary expense incurred in maintaining two tiers of local government has become more apparent.
For example, since 1979, as many as a quarter of Scotland's council houses have been sold to their tenants, yet the number of staff employed by local authorities to provide housing services has actually increased in the same period by as much as two thirds, instead of reducing proportionately, We can no longer afford to burden Scotland with a system that produces such nonsense as that. Nor can we allow Scotland to continue to be burdened with a system of local government that is ineffective, unaccountable and shrouded in apathy.
With two councils for each area of Scotland, there is a weak democratic link between the councils and their communities. One of the malign effects of the two-tier structure has been to blur the identity of authorities in the eyes of the public. It has made councils less accountable and voters more apathetic—the turnout at local elections has been pathetic.

Mr. Tony Worthington: If the Secretary of State were setting up a single-tier system within Scotland, there would be a great deal of agreement among hon. Members on all sides of the House. The Secretary of State is being extremely disingenuous, however, because he is withdrawing major services from local councils and local accountability and giving them to placemen.
Is it not simply dishonest for the Secretary of State to pretend that he is setting up a single-tier authority when he is taking water and sewerage away from local authorities, when he is taking the police away, when the reporters department is being taken away and when the further education system has been taken away already? That is not a single-tier system; it is a multi-layer mess.

Mr. Lang: I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the position that is a multi-layer mess, as he will discover if he comes on the Committee and takes part in the debates about what we propose.
Against the background that I have described, it would be wrong to delay a restructuring exercise when all the evidence from all sides points to the need for one. Lord Wheatley's commission—I will quote from it again—recognised the need when he said:
evidence from all sides convinces us that the structure of local government cannot afford to remain static".
In 1975, reform had been put off for far too long. To allow that to happen again—by failing to take account of change and to anticipate change in the future—would be a serious dereliction of duty by Government. It would also render a major disservice to local government and those people who use its services. The Bill tackles the flaws that so obviously exist and puts local government on a more effective footing from which to carry out its various functions.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that one thing which has not changed since the last reform of local government is the size and extent of the Highland region, and the fact that local government cannot by any test be regarded as local if it covers half the land mass of

Scotland? Does he recognise that it is regarded by business men, at least in the Caithness and Sutherland chamber of commerce and others, as being inimical to their economic interests to seek to govern at local level the half of Scotland that is based and centred upon Inverness?

Mr. Lang: the hon. Gentleman has a point of view which he expresses clearly, but some of his hon. Friends do not hold the same view. Under the decentralisation that we propose, all those services—the vast majority of local services in the Highlands came before from the Highland Region—will now come again from a Highland council, but they will be decentralised in a way which will lead to a much closer link administratively between the council and its local areas. The existing Highland regional council is already doing a great deal of work in preparation for that.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose—

Mr. Lang: No; I must make further progress. I will give way later.
I do not propose today to use up the House's time in describing at length all the provisions of the Bill. With 169 clauses, it obviously includes a great deal of detail, which we will, I hope, debate thoroughly in Committee. I would, however, like to spend a few moments on the principles which underpin our proposals for local government and for water.
Taking local government first, I have already touched on the support which many commentators have given to single-tier local government over the years. However, I think that it is important to reiterate exactly the three key objectives of the single-tier structure proposed in the Bill.
First, we want local councils to be strong, and, in local government, strength comes from being accountable. The ability of the public to call their local authority to account—through the ballot box or otherwise—will be improved beyond recognition where all local government responsibilities rest with a single council in an area. More accountable local government means more powerful local government.
Secondly, we want the delivery of local services to be improved. The fact that one organisation will have responsibility for the full range of services will be a major step forward on service delivery. The benefits of having social work and housing brought under one roof are well known and much anticipated, but many other areas of policy, such as leisure and recreation and education, environmental health and trading standards, will benefit from a single-tier structure.
Thirdly, we want a less bureaucratic, more flexible and efficient structure of local government. The rationalisation of local government outlined in the Bill will soon start to yield savings—savings which cannot be ignored. That has been confirmed by every submission that we have received from a local authority on the matter, and Professor Percy, chairman of the independent organisation the Local Authority Accounts Commission, stated:
In our view, the unitary authority structure favoured by the Government's White Paper on Local Government Reform provides a better way of delivering that service. We believe reform will be effective in the long term, and in the short term, once the legislation is through, all of us must get down to making it work.

Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of having a single lead authority in charge of the various functions that will be given to local authorities. He knows that he has just embarked on an ambitious care in the community policy. He has placed the social work departments of regional councils, such as the social work department of Tayside regional council, as the lead authorities in charge of that policy.
The proposed reform will create three different social work departments in the Tayside region. Which of those will be the lead authority in implementing care in the community? Instead of making the system clearer and more accountable, the Secretary of State is taking steps that will make it far less accountable. It will be far less clear who is in charge, who will implement the policy and who will be responsible if it does not work.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to a very important policy which we have devolved from central Government to local authorities—care in the community. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his understanding of the position on social work, and in his conclusion. The benefit of having social work handled in one unitary authority is that it will be possible to interrelate action on the social work side with action on the housing side. One of the strongest criticisms of the bizarre relationship between the top tier and the bottom tier of the present system concerns the lack of co-ordination between housing policy and social work policy.

Mr. Kennedy: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), will the Secretary of State clarify how any of the principles that he has just enunciated can be realised in the context of the highlands? The principles will be rendered null and void as a result of the size of the area.
Will he confirm that Touche Ross based its estimates on average council sizes of 60? That would be a reduction of two thirds in the number of councillors that the Highland region has at present. If the figure is increased to anything resembling the reckonings in the White Paper, there would be more than 130 councillors, which would be more than Strathclyde has at the moment. The Prime Minister described that regional council as a monstrosity. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is a complete illogicality.

Mr. Lang: The Highland region will still have only a little more than 200,000 people in it. Of course it is a geographically large area, but everyone recognises that Sutherland, for example, with a population of 15,000 or 16,000, could not constitute a single authority in itself, although it might do geographically. I know that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends disagree on the detail of what the Highland region should look like. Our proposal will give the most efficient, the most accountable and the strongest local government that we can create for that very important part of Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is obvious from the interventions that the Secretary of State has already accepted that the most burning issue in the minds of most hon. Members is the boundary map at the end of the process—[Interruption.] What does the rest of his speech contain? I

hope that he will take time to set out exactly how the Committee stage and the subsequent stages in the House of Lords will arrive at the final boundaries.
Is the Secretary of State aware, for example, that there is now a unitary alternative for south-east Scotland, the Lothians and the Borders? It has been proposed that West Lothian should be a free-standing unitary authority, and that Midlothian and East Lothian should be put together. That would leave Berwickshire in the Borders region, where it belongs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House on Second Reading exactly how he anticipates that these questions, which are vital for hon. Members, will be resolved during the passage of the Bill?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has served on many Committees, and he knows the form. The boundaries are dealt with at an early stage of the Bill. I expect that a Back Bencher, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, will table amendments affecting precisely the areas on which he has just touched. That will enable the Committee to debate the matter and to reach a conclusion. Thereafter, there will be a chance to return to these matters on Report. The Bill then goes to the House of Lords and back to the Commons if necessary.
We have every opportunity. I look forward to debating these issues, because I acknowledge that the borders and boundaries are important. Scottish National party Members showed clearly during the hon. Gentleman's intervention that not everyone shares his view that those issues are the most important.

Mr. Thomas Graham: If the Secretary of State believes that his Government are proposing the new, democratic way forward for councils in Scotland, why does he not acknowledge that the proposals for East Renfrewshire council have been utterly rejected by the people? In a democratic vote, 82 per cent. of the people in Ralfston rejected them, 91 per cent. voted against them in Dykebarr and 78 per cent. rejected them in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor. Those figures are in an official document from Renfrewshire district council. If the Secretary of State is determined to have genuine democracy, should he not listen to the people?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate that matter further as the Bill progresses.

Mr. John McFall: I look forward to that.

Mr. Lang: Yes, I look forward to it, too.
I recognise that there are concerns about change to a single-tier structure that are signalled in the Bill. I fully acknowledge that there will be a measure of disruption during the transitional period. That is not in itself a reason for not proceeding with the reform. Just because something involves change, it is not an excuse for shying away from it.
It is the Government's view, backed by many in local government, that the transition is a perfectly manageable process, and that, with early and committed action by local government, the disruption can be minimised. I have no doubt that, given the professionalism of many local government staff, the hurdles which will undoubtedly emerge can be successfully negotiated without undue disturbance to the delivery of services.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who did the Secretary of State have in mind when he referred to the many in local government who back his proposals?

Mr. Lang: I am referring to many people in local government at official level and at elected level, to all the submissions that we have received from local government, to all the delegations that have been led by Members of both sides of the House who have been to see myself and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning. The hon. Gentleman will discover, as the Bill progresses, that there is widespread support for single tier—an issue on which his party fought the election on a manifesto that contained such a commitment.

Mr. Phil Gallie: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to name as requested by Opposition Members all the people who have communicated support for his excellent proposals? Please do not name those people, because many of us want to speak during the debate.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that quite a lot of the names are already available in the House of Commons Library. We have published our reports on the submissions that we have had in the response to the first consultation paper.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: I really must make some progress. This is an important debate, and I have a lot to say to the House.
A number of provisions have been included in the Bill specifically to aid the transition process. They include clauses that provide for the appointment of a staff commission—clause 12—which allow the establishment of one or one or more residuary bodies—clause 18—and of a property commission—clause 19. The clauses relating to staff and property transfers have all been drafted to allow local government the maximum flexibility in determining the most appropriate arrangements.
Dwelling for a moment on those provisions, we are fully aware that local government staff represent authorities' most valuable resource, and the Government are concerned to mininise the disruption that staff may face. The great majority of staff, of course, will simply transfer to the new authorities on their existing terms and conditions. We shall be considering carefully over the months, hopefully in discussion with local government and staff interests—if they are prepared to talk to us about the interests of their staff—the arrangements which will apply to those staff for whom there will not be an automatic right of transfer. The staff commission will also have a role to play once its members are appointed, and we will listen carefully to what they have to say.
Still on the question of facilitating the transition, clauses 55 and 56 provide respectively for the provision of information from the old authorities to the new authorities and for the establishment by existing authorities of joint working committees to prepare for the effective operation of the new authorities.
It is therefore ironic that, while the Government have taken considerable steps to assist local government in managing the transitional period, and will continue to do so, the very organisation which was established to assist and represent local government—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has chosen to adopt the posture of the ostrich, bury its head in the sand and be as

obstructive as possible. Its attitude is short-sighted, short-term and ultimately damaging, not only to local government, but to staff and those who most depend on its services.
I should like to take the opportunity of today's debate to call on COSLA to decide at its meeting on Friday to call off the policy of non co-operation, in the interests of good local government and the people of Scotland. I know that it is difficult for it to admit how seriously it has miscalculated, and that it must regret its short-sighted posturing and the way in which it has split its members and paralysed its own organisation.
Its policy has failed, but it is time to look forward, not back. I for one shall not seek to make any political capital from—[Interruption.]—no political capital at all from COSLA's climbdown, whenever it comes. I hope that Opposition Members will urge it, as I shall, to get it over and done with, and to do it now.
Inevitably, some concerns have been expressed, and I do not dismiss them, but, again, the Government's task is to distinguish them from the often ill-thought-out and generalised protectionism that argues only that the present system is perfect and that any change must by definition be detrimental. I find such arguments deeply unconvincing. They are not arguments to which the forward thinkers in local government subscribe. They frequently seem bound up with the self-preservation of those who articulate them and find little support among other authorities that are thinking seriously about how to deliver efficient and effective services after reorganisation.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The Minister began by saying that he believed in a local focus and local democracy. Why, therefore, is he creating three giant water boards that are neither local nor democratic? As a Cabinet Minister, he voted in favour of a £7 billion green dowry to English water authorities. Will a similar green dowry be given to Scottish water boards, or does he believe only in putting public money in private pockets?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will remember that some adjustment was made to the finances of the Scottish Office when the changes were made in England. I shall deal with the water industry shortly.
I was mentioning authorities that are looking imaginatively at alternative means of service delivery and are investigating the possibility of co-operation among authorities and between authorities and the private sector. The Bill contains much to encourage authorities to adopt new approaches to service delivery in a range of areas.
Of particular importance is clause 57, which clarifies the legislation in relation to the ability of local authorities to trade with and provide services on behalf of each other. As the Scottish Labour party has said:
All-purpose authorities assist the development of local government as an enabling co-ordinator at the centre of a network of providing agencies … Local authorities should be able to develop their enabling role, frequently acting as the commissioning agency rather than the direct provider of services".
Again, I wholeheartedly welcome its conversion to our way of thinking.
Part II provides for the setting up of the three new public water and sewerage authorities and the customer protection body heralded in the White Paper. The first 10 clauses of part II and schedules 7, 8 and 9 establish these new bodies and set out their duties, powers and constitutions.
The new structure that will be put in place for the delivery of those vital services will achieve two crucial objectives. It will make maximum use of existing resources through economies of scale, and it will deliver necessary new resources on the best terms possible.
The backdrop to restructuring was described in detail in the consultation paper. The requirements to maintain and renew existing infrastructure and to build new plant to cope with quality obligations are well known and widely accepted and they carry a projected price tag of some £5 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. The challenge outlined in the consultation paper was how to sustain this scale of capital programme without an intolerable cost falling on Scottish customers.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Secretary of State spoke earlier of the importance of accountability through the ballot box. At present, members of water authorities in Scotland are directly accountable through the ballot box. How many of them will be under the proposals in this rotten legislation?

Mr. Lang: Water authorities will be accountable to me as Secretary of State and, through me, to Parliament. If we were not to make this change and there were to be 28 water authorities, with widely diverging costs for water and sewerage, people would take a pretty poor view of their local authority's handling of their interests if they had to pay almost twice as much for their water.
I believe that the proposals in the Bill meet the challenge that we have set. They acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed in the consultation that services should remain in public hands and, at the same time, promote partnership with the private sector for the ultimate benefit of the customer.
Under the Government's private finance initiative, I look to those new public authorities actively to form partnerships with the private sector to provide the new treatment works and other investment that is required. This will happen without the public purse taking the strain. The authorities themselves, however, will remain public authorities directly answerable to the Secretary of State, and through me to the House.
I call attention in particular to the provisions establishing the customers council. This will be a powerful voice on behalf of the consumer and will exercise a particular role in the setting of charges as well as monitoring service standards. The council will ensure that full expression is given to the principles of the citizens charter in the operation of the restructured services. These proposals are designed to deliver the most efficient and most cost-effective water and sewerage services possible.
Restructuring was inevitable as a consequence of local government reform, and it has afforded us the opportunity to align water and sewerage services to the demands of the future. The status quo was never a realistic option. Twelve authorities currently deliver services, but multiplying this number to 28 makes no economic sense. We have produced sensible measures in response to circumstances, and we shall vigorously defend them in Committee.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State said that the new boards will be accountable through him to the House. Will he assure the House that, when hon. Members table questions to him, he will answer those specific questions in this House and not duck out and pass

them back to bodies that are not directly accountable? Will he answer direct questions put to him directly in this House?

Mr. Lang: We shall answer questions in the same way that we answer them in relation to other comparable bodies. We shall remain accountable in respect of the water authorities as we do with the other bodies.
The Bill represents a comprehensive and concerted attempt to address the need for local government reform. However, the Opposition are so busy facing Janus-like in both directions that they seem unwilling to face up to any of the real issues. I hope that those on the Opposition Front Bench will today clarify where they stand.
In the general election, the Opposition supported reform and talked of "powerful, new single-tier authorities." Yet in last November's debate on the Gracious Speech, they claimed that reform was "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." Which do they really believe?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might answer that question.

Dr. Godman: I will answer that question if the Secretary of State answers a question that I put to him honestly and directly. Because of the Bill's complexity and its implications for every citizen in Scotland, should not the Secretary of State refer it to a Special Standing Committee by way of Standing Order No. 91?
By that means, now that the Bill has been published, at least those people who are deeply concerned about the Bill and its implications would have the opportunity to express their concerns, which have been expressed to me over and over again in Inverclyde. Will the Secretary of State refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow interested parties to be cross-examined by hon. Members?

Mr. Lang: No, we will not, because we have already had nearly three years of consultation on the reform of local government in Scotland. We have had more consultation papers, more submissions, more meetings with local authorities and delegations and others, and more debate in this House on these measures than on any that I can remember in my entire time in Parliament. The people of Scotland now want us to reach a decision.
From representations that we have received from many Opposition Members, I know their views and how keen many of them are to move on to implement single-tier authorities. However, I want to know more about the Labour party's position.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way at the moment.
On the one hand, the Opposition call for "powerful, new single-tier authorities", while on the other they claim that they are "completely unwanted, totally unnecessary." They claim that our reforms would strip powers from local authorities. However, the only substantial service that we are transferring, to other public authorities, is that of water and sewerage.
As I have pointed out, we recently transferred the very important community care service to local authorities. Yet Labour seems to be prepared to contemplate reforming local authorities only if it also sets up a Scottish Parliament


—and where would such a Parliament draw its powers but from local government? In the shadow of a Scottish Parliament, local government would be a very sadly diminished institution, whether of one tier or two.
Then there are the costs of reform. We have made our position clear. There will be initial costs which we calculate at less than £50 million net over the first three years and for which we are providing additional resources. Thereafter, net savings will grow and will continue year after year, reaching as much as £1 billion within 15 years. As the main costs are for redundancies, the higher the initial costs turn out to be the higher must be the subsequent savings.
Of course, as it is decisions by the new authorities that will decide the precise figures, we cannot be exact about them at this stage. However, nor can anyone else. But it is interesting how different perspectives lead to different interpretations of the figures.
Where authorities—especially Labour-controlled authorities—are making a case for their own retention under the new structure, our figures are suddenly presented as pessimistic—over-estimating costs and under-estimating savings. Only once the element of self-interest is removed, where the motivation is to discredit the reform process, are our figures portrayed as optimistic. All that leads me to believe that our figures are about right.
The hon. Member for Hamilton and his number-crunching friend the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) are all over the place on costs. On 8 November, the Scottish Labour party published a briefing paper which said that local government reorganisation would cost £200 million. Three weeks later, in The Herald, the hon. Member for Hamilnton said that local government reform would cost at least £500 million. That is a rate of inflation which even the previous Labour Government did not surpass. It would also make nonsense of anything that the Labour party had to say about the costs of local government reform.
There is a curiosity at the heart of the costs debate. In the Labour party manifesto, which provided for the establishment of single-tier councils, there were no reservations about the costs of reform. Nor have we at any stage subsequently heard any mention of the cost factor in the Opposition's proposals, whether those proposals are just to restructure local government or to set up a Scottish Parliament as well. Yet, oddly, the Government's proposals are, once again to quote the hon. Member for Hamilnton, "extremely costly".
I would be very interested to know what it is that is likely to differentiate the costs of the Government's proposals from those of the Labour party. The only significant difference that I can think of is that, under our proposals, the taxpayer will not be obliged to bear the costs of the establishment and maintenance of a Scottish Parliament. In all other respects, I would welcome an explanation from the hon. Member for Hamilnton how a policy which, in his hands, is a manifesto commitment, suddenly, when implemented by the Government, becomes "extremely expensive".
There are, therefore, inherent and fundamental weaknesses in the Opposition's case, which they must address if they are to present a credible case to the people of Scotland. On the one hand, they argue that reform is too

costly, while on the other they are themselves committed to a concept of single-tier local government and, in addition, a Scottish Parliament.
They cannot argue that the status quo is an option, if they hold to their earlier manifesto pledge to create "powerful, single-tier authorities". They cannot hold to their manifesto pledge if they claim, as they do, that the reform is "completely unwanted" and "totally unnecessary". I expect that we shall listen in vain today for some straight talking on that matter from the hon. Member for Hamilton.

Dr. John Reid: I refer the Secretary of State to the most important phrase that he has used so far. On costs, he said that the matter becomes clear only when "the element of self-interest" is removed. Does he not understand that, on such an important issue for the people of Scotland—the tier of government which is nearest to them, which is probably more sympathetic and which is less bureaucratic than any other—it is precisely the self-interest of the Tory party in conducting the investigation and consultation that is at issue?
Does he not understand that, when a party refuses not only an independent commission, like the Wheatley commission, but even a semblance of independence under a Standing Committee, the people of Scotland have every reason to doubt the objectivity of the exercise that has been carried out? Would it not be better to follow the strictures that the Secretary of State imposed on others, and remove his own self-interest, that of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and that of his party? He might then have a shred of legitimacy in his proposals.

Mr. Lang: Since the Opposition fought the last election promising single-tier local government and they now regard it as expensive, unwarranted and totally unnecessary, it is the objectivity of the Labour party that is called into question.
Against the unprincipled and ill-thought-out position of the Labour party, one thing stands out: the Government have acknowledged the problem with the present local government structure. We have defined the problem and we have had the courage to tackle it. The proposals represent a comprehensive and cohesive attempt to get to the root of the structural problems which are currently inhibiting local government.
I fully expect the Bill to be thoroughly debated, and rightly so. I can assure Opposition Members that we will listen carefully to all the arguments that are presented as it passes through all its stages, but I will do so alert to the weaknesses of the Opposition's case and their failure to present a credible alternative.
We want to get back to basics in local government. While opposition parties offer only double-talk on single-tier, we want to get on with this much-needed reform. We want local authorities that are local. We want local authorities that have authority. We want local councillors who are at last able to perform the complete function of local councillors. We want local authorities and councillors who can ensure the coherent and efficient provision of all local services in their area. In that way, we shall help to restore a true sense of local community and local identity and give a new impetus to the growth of strong local democracy.
The Bill will achieve those objectives, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. George Robertson: Over the weekend, I began to wonder exactly how much trouble the Prime Minister was in with his "back to basics" policy. We heard the Secretary of State for Scotland repeat the phrase "back to basics" this afternoon. Yesterday, when I read the Sunday newspaper that said that only the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Health supported the Prime Minister in his "back to basics" campaign, I realised exactly how deep a hole the Prime Minister is in.
This is a bad Bill. It is bad for Scotland, bad for democracy and bad for local government. It is even bad for the Government, who are apparently in their death throes. The Bill does nothing for the people of Scotland. It will do much harm to them and to their lives. Once it has done that, the people will pay for it with poorer services and the disruption and confusion of local government. They will then pay again through their pockets. The Bill will be an expensive fiasco.
This reorganisation will be paid for by higher taxes. At the last election, the Government said that they would lower taxes. Higher taxes than we expected will be imposed by those who promised lower taxes but who instead give us higher taxes with every month that passes.
This is a wholly unwanted and unnecessary reorganisation, and it will be costly.

Mr. George Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to climb the ladder of progress in a party that is declining, I will give way.

Mr. Kynoch: If this reorganisation is unwanted and unnecessary, can the hon. Gentleman explain why, on "Scottish Lobby" on 11 December 1993 he said:
The current structure could benefit from a review—a major review"?
What is it that he now thinks is unnecessary in the way of a review?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman—I hope that this will help his career—precisely makes the point. We want a review. A review is necessary. If a review concludes that changes are needed in local government in Scotland, that is something that the House should properly consider, not this gerrymandering mess dreamed up by a few individuals in the Scottish Office. No independent review has been undertaken. No royal commission has been ordered which would allow the people of Scotland to give their views and to have them considered.
This reorganisation will be a distraction. It will drive a wedge between the people and those who govern them. It will reduce accountability and increase the rule by that spreading unelected, unresponsive Tory phenomenon—the crony-stuffed quango. It will dramatically centralise power in St. Andrew's house and increase the dead weight of bureaucracy. It is an attack on democracy. Ministers who started by proclaiming it now ignore it. They started by boasting about it, but they will scarcely defend it in public now.
It is just like the poll tax. Not long ago, the Secretary of State defended and proclaimed the poll tax, which came out of the same stable of crazy ideas. A so-called reform of local government was supposed to be the efficient, cost-effective answer to that continuing rebuff to

Conservative pride in Scotland, the elected Labour council, but it is now the neglected child of the Government's legislative programme; it has been locked away in a dark room and is now a source of acute embarrassment. Rightfully and justly, the Government are ashamed of this legislation.
The Government cannot walk away from the consequence of their continual self-serving meddling with the institutions of democracy in Scotland. Twist them as they will—bend, break and remould them as they will try to do—at the end of it all is the ballot box, and the Government cannot and will not escape the message which will come from that.
On 5 May this year, there will be ballot boxes all across Scotland and people will have the choice: they will give their verdict on this shoddy, politically corrupt, anti-democratic, wasteful and irrelevant piece of legislation, which they will assuredly reject, just as when they get the chance they will reject this rotten, sleazy and shambolic Administration as well.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On 7 September last year, The Herald carried a report in the name of Jack McConnell, the general secretary of the Labour party in Scotland. The report said that the Labour party would be launching a national petition against the proposals the following week, which would take us up to 14 September. When was that petition handed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?

Mr. George Robertson: I have no doubt that the petition on local government will be presented to the Secretary of State. I was collecting signatures for it on Saturday afternoon. The petition will be large and its message substantial. The Secretary of State knows that. He has already received petitions, letters and a chorus of disapproval for what he is doing to local government in Scotland.
This is some week to be considering the Bill, as it is only four days since the word gerrymandering hit the headlines across the nation. "Unlawful, disgraceful, improper" said one headline in the Evening Standard. Those were the words used by the Westminster district auditor about a policy to sell Westminster council houses to buyers who were likely to vote Tory. What was illegal, improper and disgraceful was the spending of thousands, indeed millions, of pounds to get officers to prepare plans for what, in the words of the district auditor, was
the promotion of electoral advantage".
That is what the Westminster council Tories stand accused of and, if found guilty, that is what they will be surcharged £21 million for.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Westminster is in England.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland has suddenly discovered some brand new knowledge of geography which seemed to be absent when it came to dealing with the map of Scottish local government.
Of course, there is another ex-member of Westminster council in the Government—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the man who invented the poll tax and who has now departed to an English Department, as well he might.
The district auditor for Westminster, John Magill, works for Touche Ross—an organisation that the Secretary of State might recognise. The district auditor condemned the council when he found that
the electoral advantage of the majority party was the driving force behind the policy".
If Dame Shirty Porter ever comes back to these shores and needs some comfort before she shells out her large share of that £21 million surcharge—the amount that she and her pals squandered as they pochled votes in the Westminster city council area—let her read the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and eat her heart out. Here it is: all that she did and more, enshrined in legislation before the House of Commons.
The District Auditor said:
the council was engaged in gerrymandering which I am minded to find is a disgraceful and improper purpose.
Those words should be repeated, because the Secretary of State for Scotland should be not allowed to forget their full and lasting importance. Today he rejected the accusation that the Bill involved gerrymandering. He said in the House on 14 July:
That is not gerrymandering—it is a healthy strengthening of local democracy in all its diversity."—[Official Report, 14 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 1000.]
Lady Porter herself could not have put it better.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), should not take my word for it with regard to accusations of gerrymandering. Let them listen to the words that I quoted in the debate in November. They are the words of Councillor Brian Meek, expert columnist and authoritative sports journalist but one of Scotland's top Tories. He is a friend of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Defence Secretary. He is part of Scotland's Tory establishment. His words and his views must be of some consequence in Scotland.
Councillor Meek is not a Westminster city councillor. I do not think that he ever was, although his words of praise for Westminster city council in today's Herald may yet come back to haunt him. Two days before the Secretary of State for Scotland denounced the concept or the very thought that he might be gerrymandering, District Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council told Herald readers:
So let us get on to the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they?
Why shouldn't they give an advantage to themselves—the best chance? There it is. Frank, brutal, to the point, no messing. Councillor Brian Meek of Edinburgh district council got it right. Perhaps he keeps on getting it right. Why shouldn't they? The answer to that involves the words "unlawful", "disgraceful" and "improper" in one order or another. In any Government with any shame, decency or honour left, those words would be ringing around the Cabinet room.
Does any gentle soul—for instance, the innocents among the Conservative Back Benchers about to be condemned to serving on the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill—still care to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland is right? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I have no doubt that they will read Hansard before

they serve on the Standing Committee. Or perhaps they have to commit their offence before they are sentenced on Wednesday at the Committee of Selection.
Quite a selection of people's names come immediately to mind as possibilities to serve on the Standing Committee. If they read my speech in Hansard and if they believe the Secretary of State for Scotland and not me, let them look at Ayrshire. Let them marvel at the unique cartography that carved Conservative Kyle and Carrick out of that ancient county. Let them gaze with astonishment at the proposed East Renfrewshire council, the gyrations of which go round the Renfrewshire Tory houses and middle class enclaves close to tiny Eastwood.
In schedule 1 of the Bill, the description of each council takes a mere four or five lines. The description of East Renfrewshire takes up 49 lines—49 stricken lines in which houses, farm roads, cottages, burns and even fields are all identified in statute. It does not require the skills of Governor Huey Long of Louisiana to smell a bright blue rat in that formation.
So let any of the innocent Conservative Members of Parliament trembling at Westminster council's castigation look at the sheer imagination of the proposed Clackmannan and Falkirk council. Two distinct communities divided by the River Forth and connected only by a bridge are to be carved out artificially and unwillingly from the kingdom of Fife.
Let the Secretary of State, wriggling away as he is from the charge of gerrymandering, explain the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from—[Interruption.] I can tell the Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary what page it is on. It is on page 117—[Interruption.] I see that the PPS has now been briefed and is reading the page. He should probably telephone the occupants of Nos. 52 to 50 Ben Wyvis drive and check whether they intend to vote the right way so that the appropriate amendment can be moved in Committee, if necessary. No doubt the Secretary of State would look forward to debating that in Committee.
Let Conservative Members consider the separation of Conservative Helensburgh from Dumbarton or the ludicrous and perverse Balerno corridor, which links West Lothian to Midlothian and East Lothian. Let the Under-Secretary of State explain the removal of Berwickshire from the Borders. Let him say how that nonsense can be described, as the Secretary of State did, as creating areas where there is "an established identity."
Westhill into Aberdeen; Monifieth and Invergowrie out of Dundee; Stirling and its knife-edge Toryness preserved like some South African homeland—it is the most crudely and shamelessly gerrymandered map of local government that Britain has seen this century. Here in all its nakedness is the real reason for the Bill, for this unwanted butchery of Scottish local government. It is a cynical promotion of electoral advantage, to use the words of the Westminster district auditor.
The Scotsman puts it well in its new year editorial. It said that 1993's nadir
came with the deliverance of a shamelessly manipulated local authority map that spoke eloquently of an administration grown too comfortable with the insolence of office.
"Unlawful, improper, disgraceful": let those words haunt those who would put gerrymandering into the law of Scotland.
I have dwelt for some time on the clear partisan motivation behind the Bill because I believe that it represents an outrage and an offence to our elementary


democratic standards. Yet the faults of the legislation are not confined to the partisan manipulation of the local political map of Scotland. I would make a further point. It is a serious one filled with consequences for the House. The gerrymandering ambitions of the Government are not confined to local boundaries.
The parliamentary Boundary Commission is redrawing the parliamentary boundaries. It has to ignore the proposed new local authority building blocks. However, the next redistribution will have to deal with the new map. To seek to manipulate the political geography of Scottish local government is offensive enough. But it is easy to see that the party of Dame Shirley Porter and Lady Thatcher has a much more sinister long-term objective to sort out the parliamentary boundaries of Scotland as a whole. That kind of chicanery will be seen even by the faithful in Scotland as unforgivable and unsuccessful.
As for cost, on which the Secretary of State for Scotland is so defensive, we are told that the justification for the Bill is that the reorganisation of local government will save money. A brand new set of statistics has been delivered to the House this afternoon to prove that crazy point. As we know, the Government have no clue about the cost of what they are doing. Frankly, they care even less. They do so at a point in time when in a few weeks they will ask the people of Scotland, who have extra-large heating bills, to pay VAT on those bills to sort out the financial mess in the nation's Treasury—a mess that the Government created.
The Government first produced the Touche Ross report, which showed that we would all be financially better off as a consequence of the reorganisation. It was discredited and abandoned within days. Then came new figures, which showed one-off transitional costs of between £120 million and £186 million, but alleged savings of between £22 million and £66 million annually. The Minister with responsibility for local government, the hon. Member for Eastwood, even went so far as to say:
What is abundantly clear however is that the proposed reform will pay for itself within about five years and thereafter actually save money.
The Secretary of State told us across the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons only five days after that article appeared that he was prepared to accept a figure of £200 million for transitional costs. As the total climbs and climbs, it is clear that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State and all the rest of them do not have a clue about the cost of what they are doing.
Indeed, the Secretary of State tells us with open and unexpected candour that it is all going to be down to local authorities to make the saving that he is forecasting and which he is to tell them that they must make—as though he can now wash his hands of an exercise that is fundamental to his case, but which is profoundly embarrassing were it to be examined in depth.
The issue of who will pay is much too more important to be left to the Government's propaganda machine, which only a month ago told us of the Secretary of State's public spending triumph over the Treasury, but which then had to go into full-scale reverse when Sir Russell Hillhouse's memorandum told us the truth of that triumph.
In November, I showed quite soberly and accurately how the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the most authoritative and reliable source of financial information in local government, had proved that transitional costs could easily be as high as £500 million. There has been no convincing reply to CIPFA's case,

which was made in February of last year. The chairman of the Accounts Commission, Professor Percy, whom the Secretary of State had the gall to quote earlier, had this to say in the annual report published in September:
The Commission believes that there is a need for a dispassionate and professional look at the priorities and resourcing requirements of the new authorities.
That is true, but the fact is that no dispassionate or professional look has been given to the whole exercise for one reason alone: Government fears about the outcome of any such investigation.
I have carefully examined all the evidence, not the guesses or the optimistic gambles, but the hard evidence of the promises and the realities behind the Government's obsessional experiments with local government—the abolition of the metropolitan counties in England, the GLC and ILEA. I have examined each one. It is an interesting exercise because, in every case, Ministers claimed that there would be huge savings, fewer people employed and lower wage bills as part of the new set-up. But in every single case, transitional costs were wildly higher than promised. It all costs money, and in no case did it save it. More people were employed than before, and wage bills were appreciably higher in all cases.
That is the solid evidence to set against the guessses, hopes and completely unconvincing forecasts of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Let me cite just one example, but nevertheless an interesting and illustrative one. Of ILEA, which was abolished in 1990, Norman Tebbit—now Lord Tebbit—said:
ILEA … that overgrown, overpriced, overpolitical, underperforming monster will soon be gone, forgotten and unlamented.
But after education had been put back from one single all-London authority to 13 London boroughs, what happened? In particular, the number of senior officials—administrators earning more than £20,000 a year—rose from ILEA's total of 352 to a new total of 590 in the highest paid administrative category.
Of course that is the reality. Those are the facts. That is what happens in local government. For example, consider what the Layfield report said about the previous reorganisation in Scotland and what Sir John Banham now warns about reorganisation and the review that is taking place in England and Wales. Those are realities rather than fiction. Sir John Banham warns:
The reorganisation is complex. It is messy and picks apart practices developed successfully over almost 20 years.
There is no way that some effortless and seamless process can be put in place to avoid the transitional costs, which were found unavoidable in every other reorganisation of local government.
The Government claimed that there would be huge savings on property, which will accrue from the sale of surplus property. But taxpayers in Scotland should be aware of how bogus that prospectus really is. Of course there will be surplus property if the regions are abolished. India street in Glasgow, Tayside house in Dundee, Viewforth in Stirling, and more, will all lose their tenants. Who on earth will buy those properties? Who will rent them? In Stirling, the vacancy in Viewforth will add 60 per cent. to vacant office space. That will be accompanied by a building bonanza in other areas as the new authorities have to build in their own locations to deal with the new functions that they will take on.
One of the saddest aspects of the whole exercise is the way in which local government services have taken second


place to the ideology of reorganisation. In the White Paper, education—probably the most important local authority service of all—is dealt with in a mere 15 lines. We have not heard a single word from the Secretary of State for Scotland about education and the implications for it. Social work is disposed of in a mere 12 lines.
No explanation has been given about how education services are to be supplied when the wide range of services provided by the regions are dismantled. No information has been given to parents of children in special education facilities, about where they are to go in three years' time—only the abolition of the statutory requirement to have an education committee and a director of education. What sort of significant signal is that to the people of Scotland, from a Government who are more interested in money than in the need to maintain and improve educational standards and provision?

Mr. Kynoch: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State's proposals are going to save money, because he seems to have just said that money is taking precedence over education? If that is so, he is at least accepting that we will save some money through the proposals.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland certainly claims that they will save money, but I hope that I have demonstrated and proved that that will not be the case. If the hon. Gentleman is going to climb the ladder of opportunity in the Government—there should soon be plenty of vacancies available for him to climb into—he should make better points than that if he is going to interrupt.
We get no guidance from the White Paper. We have had little guidance from Ministers, even about social work and the myriad services now threatened by the atomisation of social work authorities. Where are the words of reassurance for the voluntary sector? Why are they now left in limbo? Why is their future and transitional financing not worthy of a single comment or reassurance from the Government? There is something shoddy about the whole exercise, from the inadequacy and dishonesty of the consultative process, through the thinness of the White Paper and to the sheer lack of thinking and guidance which has followed its publication.
As a consequence of that, and to allow people in Scotland to present their views to their parliamentarians, I will seek to move at the end of the debate that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, it is committed to a Special Standing Committee of the House so that people can make their views known—for example, about concessionary travel and concessionary travel arrangements. In Strathclyde alone, 340,000 old people and 78,000 handicapped people now face a threatened service. What about information on the problems of school catchment areas? What about the future of the trading standards service, or the regional chemist? How will they survive in this era of multiple councils?
No information has been given. There have been no background studies, no detailed planning, no conceptual frameworks. There has been nothing but the doctrinaire dash for a new gerrymandered structure, subject to no independent review. All of that, as the Accounts Commission says, is to be introduced on a ludicrously

short time scale. All the time, the Government, like some demented parrot, repeat the message about the need for single-tier authorities.
Other parties recognise the benefits that might come from some single-tier councils, but never as suggested in the Bill in its ill-thought-out, gerrymandered, back-of-the-Eastwood-envelope way. A Scottish Parliament, with powers over Scottish local government, is needed more now than it ever has been to look at what Scotland's local democratic institutions should be and should do. Never before has the case for a devolved parliament been so strikingly made as by this half-baked reorganisation proposal.
The next Government, committed as they will be, to a strong Scottish Parliament, responsible for Scottish affairs, but robustly operating within the United Kingdom, will expect that parliament to look urgently at the new set-up proposed in the Bill, if it manages to get through this Parliament.
The Bill does not propose a single-tier system, except on the map. Boards, joint arrangements and quangos will litter the landscape of Scottish local government. Instructions from the Secretary of State jump out of every page of the Bill, ranging from
With the approval of the Secretary of State
and
the Secretary of State may direct
to
as may be determined by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Just choose any page of the Bill to find such examples. The clammy hand of St. Andrew's house is everywhere, rendering meaningless the very idea of local democracy and accountability on which the Secretary of State has had the cheek to pronounce.
Why do the Government not stop pretending and admit that political control will not even stop at quangos, but will now deliberately reach deep into the last remaining balance to the centralising obsession of the Government—the locally elected councils of Scotland? This is the era of the quango, and the Bill is the quango charter.
The proposed three new water quangos are a better alternative to the Government's undisguised ambition to privatise Scotland's water, but none the less they still represent a foolish and unnecessary move away from genuine accountability. One opinion on the proposed set-up for water states:
The present water authorities are accountable to consumers and others through the local electoral process. Restructuring will remove that accountability, which must therefore be substituted by adequate statutory safeguards for consumers and others.
Are they the words of the Labour party, some disgruntled community group or members of a regional council? No. They are the words of the Scottish Landowners Federation, which has written to hon. Members about the proposal. Perhaps its opinion is surprising to some, or perhaps not, because some people in Scotland deeply believe that the creation of super-quangos is wrong for the water supply industry and Scotland. They are willing to speak out, whatever their traditional loyalties may have been.
The federation even noted:
The Consumers Council, which is intended to look after the interests of consumers, will be ineffective and out of touch with local conditions unless amendments are made.
The one amendment that is needed is simple and it would be effective: leave water alone.
If we needed an example of what rule by Tory quango can mean, we need look no further than the continuing cover-ups in the saga of Greater Glasgow health board. A man appointed as general manager, with the full backing of the Secretary of State and Ministers, a Tory to the hilt, was sacked after the health board was told that the Secretary of State had lost confidence in him. That dismissed man was then appointed to an unadvertised, specially created new job, on a salary of £80,000, on three conditions of which we are now aware—no talking, no suing and no cashing of a cheque for more than £40,000.
The Tory chairman of the board was then hung out to dry, to take the blame. We then found that even the top civil servant at the Scottish Office has been the subject of leaks and smears from unofficial, unattributable briefings. All the time the Secretary of State and the Minister of State apparently knew nothing, were told nothing and are blameless.

Mr. Lang: In the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman has been free and easy with his smears and innuendos on this matter. I understand that he has written to the Prime Minister and to Sir Robin Butler. I hope that when he gets their replies he will be as willing to seek a platform as public as this one on which to apologise for his behaviour.

Mr. Robertson: I will, of course, apologise, but I do not believe that there is anything to apologise for. I just wish that Ministers would tell the people of Scotland the truth about this affair.
In December, during Scottish questions, the Secretary of State responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and said:
I am satisfied that Mr. Fyfe was told repeatedly that he could not and should not seek to terminate Mr. Peterken's employment and make an offer of a financial settlement to him.—[Official Report, 8 December, 1993; Vol. 234, c. 304.]
On 1 December, however, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie told the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—I was present—that on 8 July he approved an approach by the national health service executive in Scotland to the Treasury relating to a package to sever Mr. Peterken's employment with Greater Glasgow health board, which would have amounted to £185,444.
That was submitted with the knowledge and, in Lord Fraser's words, "the support" of his Department and him. The Secretary of State says that he has been assured that Mr. Fyfe was told that he could not make that submission, but in the Select Committee Lord Fraser seemed to contradict him flatly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We would all like to know the answers to those questions. Is Lord Fraser telling the truth? Is the Secretary of State telling the truth? The House and I will note, and, I dare say, a wider audience outside will also note, that the Secretary of State chooses not to answer those questions. The significance of that will be noted.
Why can Ministers of the Crown not take responsibility for what they knew was happening, or carry the can for what they should have known was happening, in their Department? Frankly, there seems to be no honour left in being a Minister of the Crown in the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State seems to suggest that he knows what Sir Robin Butler's answer will be. My hon. Friend knows that I, too, wrote to Sir Robin Butler, who characteristically replies very promptly. On this occasion, however, there has been no reply from the

Secretary to the Cabinet. In those circumstances we are entitled to ask some searching questions, as my hon. Friend has done, about the role of the civil service in this matter.

Mr. Robertson: That omission disturbs me as well, because I have received no acknowledgement of a letter that the Secretary of State says he knows was received by Sir Robin Butler. I wrote to Sir Robin as head of the home civil service and I am therefore surprised that the Secretary of State—as a Cabinet Minister and a politician—should imply that he seems to know how Sir Robin will reply to me. Perhaps that further deepens the mystery that continues to surround events at Greater Glasgow health board.
This is a wretched Bill, which is of no value to anyone in Scotland, except the handful of people who see a future for the Conservatives north of the border. It follows a long line of follies perpetrated by the ideologues of Scottish conservatism. English Members and perhaps even those who represent Wales should be ware, because those same peddlers sold them the poll tax. The sales pitch was hauntingly similar to that used to sell this monstrosity.
The Government said that the poll tax would be cost-effective and fair. They sold it on the grounds of its efficiency and its power to do good for local democracy. It turned out to be an obscenity. The Opposition said just that when they floated the idea, when they introduced it and when it was transferred, after one dramatically unsuccessful year in Scotland, to England and Wales. Now everyone on the Conservative Benches knows that what we said about the poll tax was right and true, and possibly even underestimated its effects.
I warn Tory Members who see this as just another innocuous, if over-large, Bill to abolish Labour regions in Scotland to think again. A tide of anger will rise in Scotland as people grasp the enormity of the costly damage that the Bill will inflict on services, jobs, taxation arid democracy. The poll tax should have warned and wakened up the Conservative party to the madcap Scottish agenda, which rarely stops at the English border.
We shall use the Bill's progress through the House to fight a measure that is profoundly bad for Scotland and for democracy. We shall strike the first blow in the Lobbies tonight, but the real body blow will be in the ballot boxes of 1994.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, let me say that it is clear that a number of Members are anxious to contribute to the debate. If everyone makes a reasonably short speech, it should be possible to allow everyone who has so far indicated that he or she wishes to speak, to contribute.

Mr. George Kynoch: I welcome the Bill. Listening to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been most entertaining. It was quite something to see such inconsistency throughout his speech. He said that the proposals were intended purely to save money but that they were costly proposals. I hope that he will explain to his electorate and mine why he is scaremongering as usual when we are trying to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient form of local government in Scotland.
The Bill is large and detailed. I thought that it contained 167 clauses but am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State corrected me in his speech, saying that it contains 169 clauses, covering a vast array of local government matters. During the summer since the publication of the White Paper, the proposals and what they mean for my area have been discussed at length in my constituency. The Bill's general principles have been widely accepted. Although the general public in my part of the world recognise the significant benefits under the existing council structure, they seek streamlining and rationalisation of local government, and improvement in it, and good value for money in local services.
The duplication that occurs between the two tiers in the existing structure, particularly in planning, is not only confusing but aggravating to many constituents. I note at my constituency surgeries that the region often goes one way on planning and the district goes another. It is important that they go in the same direction and have a sense of purpose. The Bill clarifies and simplifies. It provides lines of responsibility within local government and a greater opportunity to act strategically.
I welcome the recognition of the clear difference between cities and rural areas. For far too long, part of the aggravation between districts and regions has occurred because cities' interests differ greatly from those of rural areas. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to introduce individual city authorities and I hope that those will come as soon as possible.
Reinforcing what my right hon. Friend said, I find it strange that we face such vehement opposition. He has already referred to the Labour party's pre-election policy document. Labour Members say that there is widespread confusion, that the functions carried out by the various tiers of local government undermine accountability and that all-purpose councils are needed. So why do they oppose the Bill? What are they scared of?
Why must their proposals for a single-tier authority be linked with an even more costly Scottish Assembly? In proposing a single-tier authority and a Scottish Assembly,, they fail to mention to the electorate, who are extremely interested in such matters. It came to light during the election campaign that they accepted that a Scottish Assembly was likely to cost the Scottish electorate at least 3p in the pound extra in taxation. The Labour party seems intent on walking away from that fact. That is a differential between north and south of the border.
The Labour party is doing the Scottish general public no service by its opposition and by urging the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities not to co-operate. Is COSLA not co-operating because it fears for jobs within local authorities? Let us face it, the Bill is about rationalisation, streamlining and providing more efficient services. Sadly, that means that certain jobs will go, as functions will be better achieved with fewer people. COSLA should direct its efforts towards the people who employ it rather than the people whom it employs. Scottish taxpayers are interested in seeing more efficient and less costly local government.
The Liberal Democrats smile happily when I discuss Labour opposition. I wonder whether they will smile when I read their 1992 Scottish manifesto—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that they have read it. Had they done so, they might not have opposed the Bill, because it clearly said:

We will: reform and strengthen local government, reducing it to a single tier. We will introduce a single-tier of local government, to deliver most of the services currently provided by districts and regions.
[HON. MEMBERS: "More, more.'] I shall give Liberal Democrat Members more. The manifesto went on:
This will end the confusion about who is accountable for what and bring local government effectively within the reach of the local citizens".
Yet the Liberal Democrats oppose the Bill. Their manifesto clearly proposed changing to a single-tier local authority and doing all the right things but, when the Government propose a Bill, they oppose it for the sake of opposition.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. He takes the view that local government is all about enabling service contract delivery and compulsory competitive tendering and reducing the role of councillors to compliance contract observation. The Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto encapsulates the idea that local democracy and local government are an essential element in the democratic process. That is the difference between the Tory party and the Opposition.

Mr. Kynoch: I want to see good local services but the aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned do nothing to degrade local government service delivery.
Scottish National party members also smile when I discuss Labour party opposition. Mr. George Leslie, former local government convenor of the SNP, said in The Scotsman on 1 October 1992:
The SNP believe that the single-tier structure will be the most effective.
As far as I am aware, all the parties appear to want single-tier local government. So what are we arguing about? We should be agreeing on single-tier local authorities.

Mr. Graham: We have heard the hon. Gentleman's views on the Labour party, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. Why did not the Government appoint a royal commission on Scottish local government so that we could see what people felt? We could probably have trusted that judgment and would not have had this gerrymandering by the Government.

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and should be interested to know whether, were it ever elected to power, the Labour party would hold a royal commission before setting up a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) talk about a commission to ascertain the requirements of the Scottish people, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish Labour party is particularly unable to identify what the Scottish people want, which is, above all, single-tier local government and the abolition of Strathclyde?

Mr. Kynoch: I certainly believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland want to see the end of Strathclyde as soon as is physically possible.
On the issue of transition, I understand my right hon. Friend's logic in not wanting regional councillors to have to serve for six years. However, I must admit that I would prefer the 1994 elections to be postponed—

Mr. Kirkwood: I bet you would.

Mr. Kynoch: —but not for the reason that the Opposition presume.
I should prefer them to be postponed because we need a meaningful transition, and to ask a regional councillor to serve for only two years would not be satisfactory. A councillor who has already served a four-year term might not want to serve the full six years but it is unreasonable to ask a new councillor to serve for only two years. I should have preferred it had my right hon. Friend been able to find a way to obtain sufficient agreement to pass quickly legislation that would enable the council elections to be postponed until 1996.
Further to the issue of transition, reference has already been made to the use of assets and I hope that optimum use will be made of them. I also hope that many buildings occupied by councils may be used in the new structure.
I am aware that the previous local government reorganisation involved an increase in costs, mainly due to a significant increase in salaries. I am therefore pleased that that issue is being dealt with and that employees will get a fair deal out of the transition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recommended a staff commission, which will look after employees' interests, and the transfer of contracts to the new authorities should ensure that there will be some continuity. The Bill also provides that he can establish a body to examine excessive salary increases as it is exceedingly important to ensure uniformity throughout Scotland.
I wonder whether the Bill goes far enough and whether the controls are sufficient. I refer my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for local government in Scotland to Monklands district council. I was very concerned to read of the alleged goings-on in Monklands. An article in The Scotsman of 17 December 1992 stated:
Councillors are accused of using their position to ensure friends and relatives are shortlisted for jobs at every level within the council. A system of pink and green applications is alleged to have enabled recruiting officers to favour certain applications".
The Guardian of 5 January 1993 also reported:
At least 22 close relatives of Labour Scottish councillors have secured jobs within the Council".
Has my right hon. Friend been approached by either of the Members of Parliament representing Monklands with, suggestions that the issue should be covered in the Bill to ensure that there are adequate controls and that priority will not be given to any particular group of people when staff are recruited for the new councils? The Labour party held its own inquiry into Monklands and The Herald of 5 March 1993 reports that Mrs. Ann McGuire, the chairman of the Labour party's Scottish executive, admitted, on the "jobs for the boys" allegation, that
the Council could be open to criticism at the level of involvement that the councillors have in the selection procedures at the lower echelons of council officials".
I do not expect my right hon. Friend to respond immediately, but I hope that, during our debates on the Bill, he will seriously consider the provision of adequate controls to ensure that such goings-on do not occur in the establishment of the new council structures.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a qualified lawyer, so we are entitled to expect him to speak with greater clarity than that. What exactly is he saying is wrong at Monklands district council? If he is saying that there is something wrong with the selection procedures, and if a senior officer of the Labour party is saying that steps will be taken to put

it right, why is the hon. Gentleman demanding legislation? I do not understand his point; perhaps it is the cheap point that was made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, when challenged about Westminster council, said that it was a matter for the local authority, not the Crown. I think that the Secretary of State will give exactly the same reply this afternoon.

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying but the Opposition are again trying a whitewash. I am concerned to ensure that there is no favouritism—

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No, I will not. I have already given way and shall not do so again.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman who is speaking is not giving way.

Mr. Hogg: It is because he has not got a point to make.

Mr. Kynoch: I must also correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether I am flattered to be called a lawyer. In fact, I came from business and was a mechanical engineer by profession, not a lawyer. I have finished with that issue but I should like confirmation that it will be considered as the Bill passes through its various stages.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kynoch: No. I shall now deal with the Bill's provisions for decentralisation.
Decentralisation is clearly of particular importance for rural authorities and I speak as someone representing a rural constituency. I understand my right hon. Friend's arguments for having a large rural authority surrounding a city in order to provide a counterbalance to ensure that the authority is large enough to provide local services in a proper and cost-effective way. I also greatly welcome his recognition that one needs decentralisation for the proper delivery of local services. I hope that, under decentralisation, he will still be able to use as much as possible of the existing local government structure.
My hon. Friend the Minister with responsiblity for local government in Scotland is quoted as saying that he recognises the benefit of community councils and their contribution to consultation in the new council structure. Community councils have served a useful function locally as advisory panels for local government and I trust that they will continue to play an important role under the new structure when we shall have larger rural authorities.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hamilton had to say about water. He appeared to be worried about cost and the delivery of service but also said that water services should be left as they are. If by that he means that we should leave water services with the nine existing authorities, I fail to understand him because, as I understand the Bill, those authorities will cease to exist and will therefore not be able to manage any water authority. If, however, he believes that water services should be turned over to the 28 proposed authorities, that is a different matter. However, 28 authorities would be far too many to ensure the uniformity that my right hon. Friend mentioned.
Clearly, there will have to be significant capital expenditure in the water industry in the next 10 to 15 years. I can see that nowhere more than in my constituency


where, due to the success of oil and the development of the north-east, Aberdeen local services—for example, sewage treatment plants—are bursting at the seams and desperately need renewing to cope with developments in the area. I hope that the funds will be more readily available through the use of private finance as a result of the structures that my right hon. Friend has proposed. I welcome the provisions in clause 80 to introduce capital from the private sector. The Bill means a partnership between public organisation and private finance and should be of immense benefit to consumers.
I would be wrong if I did not mention rural areas and the representations that I have received from the Scottish Landowners Federation, which is concerned about the welfare of its members—many of whom are my constituents—who live and work in rural communities. It wants to ensure that they are not hard done by because of the cost of implementing water services in the countryside. Obviously, I welcome the setting up of a customers council, which will protect the interests of consumers. I hope that representatives on the council will recognise the needs of those who live in rural communities and the countryside.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate from the Back Benches you sensibly and rightly asked hon. Members to be brief. The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has been talking for 20 minutes and has a lot of paper left in his hand. Do you have no power to ask him to draw his remarks to a halt?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The short answer is no.

Mr. Kynoch: I am trying to talk as concisely as I can about a comprehensive Bill that has important implications for my constituents and the people of Scotland. If the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is not interested in dealing with serious matters, that is up to him.
I hope that other aspects of water will be dealt with in Committee, in particular the legal framework for installing new water mains, which is also of interest to my constituents. I recognise that controls are necessary and that the controls built into the Bill are clearly better than the previous ones, but I hope that there will be detailed consideration of the matter in Committee.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in saying that such detailed matters are for Committee? We are discussing the principle of the Bill. Surely you have the power to draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside. He is going to be on the Committee anyway, so surely he can raise such matters then and talk only about the principles of the Bill now.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that we are dealing with the principles of the Bill. Normally one allows reasonable latitude for hon. Members to make particular points, but I remind the House that it is true that we are dealing with the principles.

Mr. Kynoch: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to keep to the principles of the water provisions in the Bill rather than the detail, which will obviously be discussed at great length in Committee.
During the summer, boundaries were the major topic of conversation in my constituency. This is a significant Bill, which will have much more import for the people of Scotland and to ensure that it works well, it is important to get the fine details right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows only too well that I have approached him and my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local government concerning two boundaries within my existing constituency and part of that of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
Under the parliamentary boundary reform, it is proposed that that area will come within the constituency that I represent. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has said that such matters will be debated in full in Committee. I hope that he will listen to rational arguments and that we can get those matters rectified. As suggested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in previous debates on the subject, I shall ensure that amendments are tabled to enable proper discussion of those subjects.
Regardless of what Opposition Members say about cost—their arguments seem to be totally inconsistent as they go for single-tier authorities, but do not tell us what the cost would be—I believe that the Bill is good for the people of Scotland and for local government in Scotland. I hope that we can get it through as quickly as physically possible.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am grateful for this opportunity to contribute so early to the debate. I hope that the temporary Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) will forgive me if I do not follow all his arguments, although I agree with him on one matter. He said that he did not want elections for the region to be held in 1994, and I can well understand that. If I were an hon. Member serving on the Conservative Benches, I would not want elections for anything in 1994, 1995, 1996 or at any time this side of the turn of the century.
I can well understand why he does not want elections, but he will have to face them. There will be elections for the region and I am sure that, when the people of Scotland are asked how they view the Government's conduct, they will not hesitate to give the reply that they have given so consistently over the years.
In common with all my colleagues in the official Opposition and the other Opposition parties, I am less than impressed by the Government's proposals in the Bill. Nothing that I heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon lessened my fears for the future of Scotland's local authorities. It seems that the aim of local government should be to provide efficient services on a cost-effective basis within a democratic framework, but none of those objectives is dealt with or met in the Bill.
The question that remains to be asked is why we are having the reorganisations at all. The answer is clear. The Conservatives have failed to win councils or parliamentary seats in Scotland and they propose blatantly to fix things. The charge that that is gerrymandering is entirely valid. I think that all hon. Members would accept that redrawing boundaries for Scottish local government is difficult. It is not easy to marry the concentrations of population and the geography, but there is not a shred of evidence that those


considerations have ever been dealt with by the Tory Ministers who drafted the plans. It is all too evident that the proposals' aims are political and owe nothing to the provision of effective, cost-effective or democratic local government.
That fact is best illustrated by referring to my constituency. It is proposed that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth should be included in the new North Lanarkshire authority, but the area has not been a part of Lanarkshire at any time in its history. Cumbernauld was in Dumbartonshire detached—it was not part of main Dumbartonshire.
Before borough status and the last reorganisation in the mid-1970s, services were provided by Dumbarton county council. After the formation of Strathclyde regional council and the district council of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, services other than district services were provided by the Dumbarton division of the regional council—I suppose that one could describe that as the county council continuing.
More recently, social work provision moved to Monklands and health services were provided through the Lanarkshire health board. However, my constituents would have preferred their health provision to come from the Greater Glasgow health board. That is said with no disrespect to Monklands general hospital, or any other Lanarkshire hospital, or to the health provisions of the Lanarkshire health board, but is simply a reflection of where people come from.
They come from the city of Glasgow, and Kilsyth has a long historical attachment to Glasgow's hospital service. Lanarkshire and the towns of Motherwell, Coatbridge and Airdrie have never been associated with the provision of local government services for my constituency. Moreover, those locations are not easily reached by public transport from Cumbernauld or Kilsyth. It goes without saying that my constituents do not use—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not want his constituency to be linked with Monklands?

Mr. Hogg: No, I am certainly not saying that. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case, I will make positive arguments for its being part of Dumbartonshire. I pointed out that historically we are part of Dumbartonshire. [Interruption.] The proposal is not to put Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in with Monklands; it is to create a North Lanarkshire authority.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House knows my views about seated interventions.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to jump up and down—I think that that is the trouble.
The obvious new authority for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth would be the council that was identified in the White Paper. That was the point to which I referred earlier. I think that the hon. Member hails from Dumbartonshire.

Mr. Robertson: Motherwell.

Mr. Hogg: We had better get that right, just for the record. The hon. Gentleman represents Aberdeen, South and may not be altogether familiar with Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and its location, but the obvious new authority for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth would be the council that was identified in the White Paper as East Dumbartonshire. That used to be the name of the constituency that I represented

here a long time ago—the constituency that I originally represented in Parliament. In that authority we would continue to be part of the geographical and administrative area to which we have always related.
The community has been excluded from East Dumbartonshire because it would distort the Government's aim to produce a Tory-dominated council. To that end, they have decided to create East Dumbartonshire and exclude not only my constituency but part of Strathkelvin which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) and that part of the council area in Strathkelvin which is represented on the regional council by the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Councillor Charles Gray. Strong representations have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West for that area to be included with Strathkelvin when it goes to the new East Dumbartonshire.
The area of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, currently the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council area, would be better placed in that authority and it would be better if that authority were given its correct name of Lennox. That is the view of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council. It is the view of the people of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth as revealed in a parliamentary answer that was given to me recently. There is overwhelming public support for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth being part of the new East Dumbartonshire authority, and no consent whatever from the public for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth to be part of North Lanarkshire.
I will now discuss the services of local government. I think that the Government's proposals pose a serious threat to the continuation of the excellent services that we have enjoyed from Scottish local government. I can honestly say—I think that it goes for most of my colleagues—that we rarely hear complaints about Strathclyde regional council and the provision of its services. It is a first class, well managed, well run local authority. That is equally true of the district councils that have the difficult task of administering, in the main, the housing function.
Throughout the 15 years that I have served in Parliament and Strathclyde regional council and the district councils have been in existence, I have not encountered serious complaints about the administration of the authorities. On very few occasions have I had to fall out with those authorities in any major way. That has not been my experience and I am confident that my colleagues would support me in that.
I believe that the Government's proposals seriously threaten many of the major services of local government. I shall refer only to education—the service which is most threatened by the Bill.
The Government's education policy in Scotland has failed. It has not secured public support. If it had, we would have opted-out schools, but we do not, because parents did not consent to that. They have not consented to the eccentric and somewhat radical ideas that have gained currency elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because they know what is good and what works. They know that education authorities such as Strathclyde regional council have not failed them and that they have dealt well with the difficulties foisted on them by the underfunding that has been such a feature of the present Government.
I believe that the Government will do what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hinted at. Scotland will be abused in much the same way as London has been abused, in educational terms.

Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that the post-Inner London education authority situation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, will be the experience of Scottish parents if we allow the Bill to be passed. I am certain that in Scotland or among the Scottish media it will not be popular to draw parallels with London, but the experience in London has not been good and the proposals that are before us have much in common with what has happened here in the metropolis. I am certain that the people of Scotland do not wish that to happen to them and that they are right to reject the proposals.
Much research has been carried out for me into what has happened with ILEA and I will make that available to my hon. Friends who will serve on the Committee. I hope that they will be able to use that material to expose what will happen if we move from the democratic control of elected councillors serving as an elected education authority to the type of diluted quango proposed by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Stewart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not think that he has read his own Bill. If he reads it—which I recommend that he do, because he might be frightened at some of the things that he discovers—he will discover what the Government propose for education, which is a dilution of democratic control. It is a dilution of parent power, and it is quite deliberate.
The Under-Secretary is doing it because the other policy, for which school boards were designed and opting out was designed, has failed and been rejected. No one agrees with him on education policy and that is why the proposals are before us today. It is one of the reasons why we are having a reorganisation of local government which no one in Scotland asked for and no one in Scottish local government argued for, but which the Minister thought was necessary to bolster a situation in which his policies had been rejected. That is why this is happening.
We shall lose control over major services such as education and social work. There will be a diminution of council—

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Of course.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am genuinely puzzled by what he is saying. It is clear from the Bill that education and social work remain the responsibilities of the new authority.

Mr. Hogg: I am not surprised that the Minister is puzzled. Puzzlement seems to be his permanent condition. Is he really saying, however, that very small local authorities will be education authorities, with all the complex services that such authorities operate, and that they will be able to make the specialist provision that we enjoy in the Lothian region and the Strathclyde region? Is he really saying that the tiny minds of Eastwood, who

would be operating the tiny authority of Eastwood, will really be able to do that? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is arguing?

Mr. Stewart: The education authority with the best record in terms of the number of pupils going on to higher and further education is Western Isles.

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that that point illustrates very much. It obviously pleases the Minister, who is sitting looking awfully pleased with himself for having made that point. I am not sure that the point is worth making. Western Isles cannot be compared with great industrial conurba-tions such as Glasgow, in which education is administered by Strathclyde regional council.
To draw an analogy between an education authority with the complexities of Glasgow and Western Isles is fatuous. I am surprised that anyone who takes responsibility for Government policy in this area should make such a foolish point. The Government's proposals enjoy no respect among the people of Scotland. No support for these policies is expressed anywhere.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, because the hon. Gentleman has a certain entertainment value.

Mr. Gallie: Is the hon. Gentleman's mail bag as packed as mine is with representations from district councils throughout Scotland urging support for their case for becoming single-tier local authorities? If he is receiving such representations, will he withdraw his comments?

Mr. Hogg: No. I cannot say that I am receiving such mail. By the Government's admission, the overwhelming majority of the more than 4,000 letters that the Secretary of State and I have had from my constituency oppose the Government's proposals for local government reform, oppose the proposal that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth should be part of North Lanarkshire and support the proposal that we should be part of a new Lennox authority. On that note, I end my speech. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: This is the third occasion on which we have debated the reform of local government in Scotland on the Floor of the House. Despite the three debates, one statement in the House and one debate in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh, the Opposition still seek to deny their past commitment to single-tier authorities. They continue to opt out of the real debate and they still fail to grasp the issues and the arguments involved. We saw that today when the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) had to pad out his speech by ranting about Westminster city council and by rambling on about the Inner London education authority and the Greater Glasgow health board. None of that had any relevance to the Bill.
The Opposition's approach is interesting. When we debate cost, for example, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) formulates his attack in a sophisticated way. He thinks of a number, adds a nought and then multiples it by a factor of anything between one and 31, depending on which day of the month it happens to be. If that does not get him a headline, he adds another nought. He goes on until someone, somewhere—anyone, anywhere


—picks up his press release and gives him a headline. He then smirks with satisfaction, not realising that out there, no one—not even his own party's council groups—believes him any more.
As we have heard before, Dundee district council, which is Labour-controlled, predicts savings of £1·8 million. Dunfermline district council, which is Labour-controlled, predicts savings of more than £8 million from the proposed reforms.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Any hon. Member could produce a precedent of a single education authority that has been turned into a dozen education authorities and could then show that the number of officials above a certain level has increased by a factor of about 75 per cent. Why is that irrelevant to the present debate?

Mr. Robertson: I shall answer that question if the hon. Gentleman stands by his manifesto commitment to return to single-tier authorities. Is he trying to say that the way in which we propose to achieve single-tier authorities will be more expensive than the way that he proposed? Throughout this debate and our debate last summer, the Opposition have sought to deny their previous commitment to this policy. The hon. Gentleman has just displayed that.
When we debate boundaries, the hon. Member for Hamilton and his party are all over the place. On the previous occasion on which we debated the matter on the Floor of the House, he told us that he believed that commuter communities—those were his words—surrounding cities should be in the same unitary authority as their city and he used Dundee as an example. He now screws up his eyes. If he looks at column 210 of the Official Report for 22 November 1993, he will see it all there.
That is not what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is saying about Aberdeen and it is certainly not what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is saying about Glasgow. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton, in agreeing to this diversity of approach, is quietly accepting what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been saying since last summer—that to be genuinely local and properly sensitive, there can be no one solution that is correct for all parts of Scotland. Uniformity of principle does not demand uniformity of approach.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman and I share a surname. Surely the hon. Gentleman can share the same standard. If he quotes me, he should quote me accurately. In relation to commuter communities, I said:
In Tayside, despite the changes announced by the Secretary of State today, Dundee city has still lost some of its major commuter communities in Monifieth and in Invergowrie. That leaves the city to pay the hefty bills for services provided to those people who are now taken out of the city boundaries."—[Official Report, 22 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 210.]
That point related specifically to Dundee, which I mentioned in my speech today. Where is the general principle that the hon. Gentleman is now beginning to develop as a policy?

Mr. Robertson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is saying—I shall gladly give way to him again—that communities should be with their city. Why is that to be relevant to Dundee, but not to Aberdeen? That is the point that I am

making. You are all over the place. You are saying one thing for one city and quite another for another to try to suit your argument—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that remarks are addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Robertson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is in Labour's opposition to the Bill in general that we see its complete disarray. The grand campaign of non-co-operation by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, about which my right hon. Friend talked, was first on, then off, then on again with refinements, then off, and then on again with refinements. It is now expected to be abandoned by the end of the week. We must not despair.
The hon. Member for Hamilton tells us that, he still has an ace to play. He tells us that to breathe new life into the campaign against the Bill, he plans to motivate a vast army of angry Conservative Back Benchers from English constituencies who, we are told, believe it or not, are fearful of their seats because of the reform of Scottish local government. According to the hon. Gentleman's line, they will, together with Opposition parties, amend, wreck and finally defeat the Bill.
Looking around me today, I have to say that it would have been nice if there had been some more English colleagues here to listen and perhaps to take part. I see no vast, angry army, whom the hon. Member for Hamilton hopes to employ. My hon. Friends show by their absence from this debate that they are far more prepared to take the leadership of my right hon. Friend than they are to take the words of the hon. Member for Hamilton.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has noted the absence of his English colleagues. Would he say that that is a qualification for them to then serve in Committee?

Mr. Robertson: I am saying that English colleagues who are not here are behaving as we do when purely English business is being discussed. We tend to do other things and then return to the Chamber.
I return to the point about Aberdeen and north-east Scotland. On publication of my right hon. Friend's consultative document and the subsequent White Papter, the responses from Aberdeen and from the north-east poured in, from all the district councils, the regional council, the Conservative council groups, individuals and other interested bodies.
When listening to Opposition Front-Bench Members, as they fulminate and demonstrate against my right hon. Friend's proposals, one must ask whether the hon. Member for Hamilton is the shadow Secretary of State for all of Scotland or just for the part of Scotland from which he comes and in which his party is especially strong—Strathclyde and Midlothian.
The hon. Member for Hamilton must realise that, if he aspires to the great office of Secretary of State, he must be prepared to back all of Scotland and not simply that part of our country with which he is most comfortable. His attitude seems to be, and his speech confirmed it, that he will fight hard for Strathclyde and Lothian and damn the rest. It is notable that he had little to say about anything north of Edinburgh.
The response to what my right hon. Friend is proposing for Aberdeen is best summed up by a quotation from one of the submissions:


In short, local government in Aberdeen can be improved by re-establishing the city as a unitary authority. This would promote a more efficient, accountable, economical and responsive local administration and service delivery.
That letter was not from me, but from the Labour group of the city of Aberdeen district council which was unanimously adopted by the council's Labour group, Conservative group, Liberal group and two Scottish National party councillors.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, has also gone on the record as saying:
There will certainly be a great satisfaction at the restoration of a single-tier authority for the city of Aberdeen.
Perhaps the feeling in Aberdeen was best summed up by the Press and Journal, which carried this headline the morning after the publication of the White Paper: "Aberdeen Achieves Goal".
Outside the city, an Aberdeenshire council is proposed, which, while large enough to act as a counterbalance for the new city authority, is also of a size which will allow it to be genuinely local and to be accessible and accountable to those who depend on it for their services. My right hon. Friend has again responded to many of the fears and concerns of the smaller district councils in the Grampian region, which were rightly concerned with the principle of accountability and the question of sensitivity in dealing with local matters.
For example, Kincardine and Deeside district council's response stated:
Specifically, a combined Gordon/Banff and Buchan/ Kincardine and Deeside unit would be acceptable
and said that such an authority
would not reflect local loyalties and allegiances. (There is little in common between the residents of say, St. Cyrus, and Huntly or Peterhead).
My right hon. Friend's proposals address those concerns. The larger authorities, in terms of land area, must be instructed to come forward with detailed plans for decentralisation and dispersal throughout the authority area, which will further help to alleviate many of the fears.
There has been concern over my right hon. Friend's plans to include the suburb of Westhill in the new Aberdeen authority. Much nonsense has been talked over its similarity with other places such as Banchory, Ellon and Inverurie. Those who have made such statements obviously do not know the geography of the area. The extent of the present district council boundary, measured as the crow flies from Aberdeen's town house, the accepted centre of the city, is 9·7 milses north-west at Hatton of Fintray, 9·75 miles west at Leuchar Moss and 9·5 miles south-west at Moss-side, while the most westerly point of the community of Westhill lies some 8 miles from the town house, comfortably in the radius of the present district council boundary. In road terms from the town house, Dyce is 7·1 miles away and is already inside the city boundary and Peterculter is 7·3 miles and is already inside the city boundary, whereas Westhill is only 7·2 miles away—nearer to the town house than Peterculter.
The city of Aberdeen district council's Labour group acknowledged those facts when it said in its response:
Portlethen and Westhill function to a significant extent as dormitory suburbs of Aberdeen. In social and economic terms they are very much part of the overall activity patterns of the city. Their location, close to the existing boundary distinguishes them from other settlements in the Aberdeen area (ie Ellon, Banchory,

Stonehaven, Inverurie) where the effect of factors such as distance enable those communities to be more self-sustaining and identifiable in their own right.
In all the debates since the publication of the White Paper, I have heard no one deny that the people of Westhill look to the city of Aberdeen and none deny that their focus is the city.
It is to the city that the people of Westhill go in their thousands to work each day. The Westhill people go to Aberdeen to catch a long-distance bus or train, for their weekly shopping, their entertainment, to eat out and for their leisure and recreation. To get to Aberdeen, they travel on the upgraded A944, which has been part-dualled to cope with the volume of traffic.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find our tour of Aberdeen interesting, but I thought that you ruled earlier that this is the Second Reading of a Bill which covers a bigger part of Scotland than Aberdeen. I hope that you will ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us more of his views on the rest of Scotland after what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly true that we are debating the general principles of the Bill, but during such a debate, there is no reason why hon. Members should not use illustrative examples if they so wish. It must be for the Chair to decide whether the balance is right. I am sure that all hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg).

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will know that, unlike him, I am a real Aberdonian; born and bred in the city and the son of a distinguished Lord Provost. I am sure that he would agree that my qualifications for asking him about Aberdeen and the surrounding area are not to be challenged. I am interested in what he says about all those areas. Would not that be a case for Eastwood being part of Glasgow?

Mr. Robertson: I knew that somewhere, somebody sitting on the Opposition Benches would fall into that trap. Westhill is a tenth of the size of Eastwood. There is no parallel whatever. A portrait of the hon. Gentleman's father hangs with distinction in Aberdeen town house, which is soon to be the home of an all-purpose city of Aberdeen authority, about which I am sure he will be delighted.
The A944 has been part-dualled to cope with the volume of traffic from Westhill to the city centre. Inverurie, on the other hand, can be reached only by an A class road into Aberdeen or by travelling on a number of tortuous B and C class roads. It is also worth noting that on 10 January, the Bluebird bus service increased its off-peak service between Westhill and the city centre in response to customer demand.
The case for the inclusion of Westhill into the city has been supported by Councillor Geoff Hadley, the former independent convenor of the Grampian regional council and no friend of the Government. In the Press and Journal on 9 September, he said:
During the 25 years since Aberdeen County Council fell in with the developers … Westhill has grown and been variously described as a garden suburb, dormitory town and satellite town—all terms which imply a population shunted between home and work locations.
But this is not simply about commuting. I would guess that perhaps 90 per cent. of Westhill residents' activities associated


with work, cultural affairs, social events, sports, shopping and so on relate to the Aberdeen city locus. Few will look to Inverurie or other towns in Gordon District for promoting their lifestyle.
Given this, is there not a certain illogicality in the declared reluctance of Westhill residents to become part of Aberdeen?
If local government is to be wholly local, Westhill being no further from the city centre than Dyce or Peterculter lends weight to a logical—if reluctant—acquiesence to the Government's proposals for a merger.

Mr. Kynoch: I do not think that this is the place to debate such matters—that would be in Committee—but will my hon. Friend tell the House, for the benefit of those who do not know where Westhill is, the distance between Westhill and the nearest housing in Aberdeen city and what lies between there and Westhill?

Mr. Robertson: A more useful parallel for my hon. Friend to draw is that the commuter suburb of Peterculter, in his constituency, is 7·3 miles from the city centre and that Westhill, not in his constituency, is 7·2 miles from the city centre.
At present, the existing Grampian region gives the people of Westhill some say in the affairs of Aberdeen on a number of, although not all, important issues. In April 1996, all that will change. If Westhill remains outside the city, residents will be left as the poor relations with no democratic input into a city which plays such a large role in their everyday lives. They deserve representation in the city.
Today does not mark the end of the debate on local government reform, but it marks an end of the beginning. My right hon. Friend's proposals offer a new era in the affairs of local government in Scotland—strong, accountable and powerful unitary authorities—yet, at the same time, those councils will, by their very nature, be sensitive to local needs and responsive to local requirements.
That is a stark contrast to what is on offer from the Opposition: an Edinburgh assembly plundering the power of local councils, to grab it and to take it to Edinburgh. It would have denuded town halls in Scotland of their power and centralised it at Calton Hill, thus taking decision making away from the people, rather than empowering the people through one councillor and one council. Two visions of Scotland's future are on offer. I am happy and proud to support the vision of my right hon. Friend, which the people of Scotland will endorse.

Mr. James Wallace: It will have been noted how the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), in his infinite wisdom, patronisingly told the people of Westhill what was best for them, despite the fact that, in a house-to-house survey 98 per cent. of them said that they want to remain part of a rural authority. That attitude should come as no surprise from a member of a party whose Government are proposing a Bill to dictate, to patronise and to tell us what is best.
This is the biggest Scottish Bill since 1979, but it is one of the most disreputable Bills that I have seen since becoming a Member. Rather than being a well-designed vehicle to bring about a smooth reform of local government, we have a hybrid between a bulldozer and a parliamentary omnibus.
The Bill contains six different measures that could have merited separate legislation—reform of local government; a fundamentally changed structure for water and sewerage

services; important detailed provisions on local government finance; important changes in the organisation of the function of the reporter to the children's panel, which has scarcely had a mention so far; significant changes to the legislation on road tolls; and important detailed provisions on the reform of tourism—an important part of the Scottish economy which, because of the nature of the Bill, will scarcely receive the adequate consideration that it requires.
Each of those issues could be appropriately dealt with by a Scottish Parliament. The Bill, combined with the Government's proposals to smuggle in sweeping reforms of the police and prison administration under the cloak of English legislation and their failure to find time to legislate for proposals in the White Paper, "Scotland's Children", shows how ill served Scotland's legislative interests are by the current arrangements of the House.
If they were here, Conservative Members for English seats would not countenance a full domestic agenda for one Session being cobbled together in one Bill, and if that would not be good enough for them why should Scotland's legislation be treated in such a second-rate manner?
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was in Committee from early January until May. This Bill requires just as much time and I trust that the Government will make a commitment this evening to secure it.
The Bill is further tarnished by the procedures that have led to the proposed changes in local government structure, which are taking place only 20 years after a Conservative Government undertook the last reform. On that occasion, reform took place against a background of a royal commission and broad consensus. Today, there has been no overall view of local government and of its role and functions and no independent proposals on boundaries. Uncertainty exists among local authority employees about their future conditions of employment and whether they will have jobs—it would be welcome if the Minister could confirm that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply to staff who are faced with dislocation as a result of the reforms. Above all, there is no consensus. That is no basis for the stable reform of local government.
Perhaps the most disreputable aspect of the Bill is the profoundly anti-democratic thrust of its provisions. Should its provisions pass into law, the Government's talk of reviving the dynamism of local democracy will be seen for the fraud that we know it to be. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury expresses concern about the cynicism that he claims is now attaching itself to our national institutions, but he should not be surprised. His name appears on the Bill as a supporter.
What can be a more cynical gerrymander than the provisions that describe the new East Renfrewshire local authority? One wonders whether the Chief Secretary has looked at them. For example, schedule I mentions
the southern curtilages of No 43 Ben Lui Drive, Nos 52 to 50 Ben Wyvis Drive and northwards along the western curtilages of Nos 20 to 16 of the said Ben Wyvis Drive".
I want to know what has happened to Nos 22 to 48 Ben Wyvis drive. I am pleased to see the Chief Secretary standing at the Bar of the House. He should pay careful attention to schedule I if he wants to know why the population are rightly cynical of the Government's proposals.
Much has been made in the debate, and will be made in Committee, of boundaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon.


Friends who represent highland constituencies and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have expressed deep concern about the proposals that affect their areas and appear to take no account of local opinion. The same applies to residents of Westhill, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).
Such matters are critical to people who want to identify with their local community—and one hopes that even at this stage the Government will recognise the importance of that—but it will hardly matter where boundaries fall if local government has been stripped of its ability to govern. The Government have already introduced 150 measures to take such power from local communities and put it in the hands of central Government and the Bill goes a long way to completing that neutering process.
More than 180 provisions in the Bill extend the power of the Secretary of State to interfere in the decision making of locally elected councils. The phrase
The Secretary of State may by order
or words to similar effect, appear more than 70 times in the Bill and more often than not are subject to negative procedures. In addition, the Secretary of State can issue guidelines or directions in a further 47 instances to change, to block or to compel council decisions and in a further 65 instances the Bill is littered with open-ended phrases like
as the Secretary of State thinks fit
or "as he considers appropriate". Such powers tear the heart out of local democracy and are wholly inimical to what the Liberal Democratic party stands for.
The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) quoted from the Scottish Liberal Democrat manifesto for the last election. I am pleased that he did. I regret only that more voters in Kincardine and Deeside did not vote for our proposals. My party believes in reforming and strengthening local government, but this Government are interested only in reforming and substantially weakening it.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument against a Scottish Parliament advanced by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is undermined by my hon. Friend's point about the number of times that the Secretary of State proposes to intervene and direct local authorities? The purpose of a Scottish Parliament would not be to take power from local authorities but to make the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office accountable to the people of Scotland, about which the Conservative party does not care because it cannot win the support of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend sums it up concisely. He will share our party's belief that local government should allow local people the power and opportunity to shape and influence their local communities with minimal interference from outside, from a Scottish Parliament or from the Secretary of State, and to be subject only to proper regard for the law and human rights and, ultimately, to the accountability of the ballot box.
What sticks in my craw as I read the Bill is the Government's arrogant underlying assumption that only a Tory Secretary of State will ever exercise the Bill's powers. That belief might stretch credibility today, but before Conservative Members vote for the Bill I hope that

they will contemplate the possibility of a Labour Secretary of State having the kind of powers that are contained in the Bill.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, when a Labour Secretary of State proposed to reorganise local government, he set up a royal commission and put on it Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, a Tory Member of Parliament, and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)? That was the proper, democratic way to reorganise local government. I hope that he will give credit to a Labour Secretary of State for doing that.

Mr. Wallace: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a factual point for which I readily give credit. That path should have been pursued in this instance.
Perhaps Conservative Members will read page 17 of the Bill and the proposed new section 62B to be added to the 1973 Act. What in that section would stop a Secretary of State of a different party considering that the local government functions of west central Scotland should be discharged jointly by a joint board comprising Dumbarton and Clydebank, East Dumbartonshire, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, West Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and City of Glasgow councils? The whole of Strathclyde region could be recreated. Indeed, any other region could be recreated as a result of the powers which the Bill gives to a Secretary of State. There is provision for statutory consultation, but that is unlikely to save the day if the standards of consultation operated by the present Scottish Office team were to be adopted. I hope that Conservative Members will think carefully about that before they vote to give such unfettered power to the Secretary of State.
Is it the Minister's intention or that of the Secretary of State to appoint persons other than elected councillors to the joint boards? How does the Minister expect the party balance to be established on those boards? While joint boards are less acceptable than directly elected authorities, they are nevertheless preferable to quangos. As might be expected from a Department which has an insatiable appetite for quangos, the Bill creates its fair share of them. The Scottish Office should learn lessons from quangos.
Having listened to the exchanges between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I believe that the House should be concerned by the clear and apparent discrepancies between the answers given to the Select Committee by Lord Fraser and the answer given by the Secretary of State in the House. I am also concerned about the fact that the Secretary of State appeared to know the contents of a letter from the head of the home civil service to the hon. Member for Hamilton. Perhaps the House should be informed of the protocol when an hon. Member writes to the head of the home civil service. Is he being tampered with and expeced to bow to political pressure? As that famous phrase in a magazine states, "I think we should be told." Very important constitutional points arise on that matter.
The Bill has its fair share of quangos. Not only is the supply of water and sewerage services to be removed from elected and accountable control, but the consumers watchdog is to become a committee of the Secretary of State's appointees. Those appointees will be paid to be members of that committee and will receive expenses. In addition, they may receive compensation if a term of office expires early. They may receive pensions, allowances and


gratuities. I believe that democracy would render the delivery of those services more accountable and that the ballot box is probably a cheaper watchdog than cumulative paid jobs for the boys and girls as proposed in the Bill.
I have several specific questions about water and sewerage services. Is the accrued capital debt of the regional and islands water authorities to be written off and a green dowry given to the new water authorities as was the case when the English water services were restructured? Surely our domestic consumers should receive the same kind of benefits. Indeed, our business consumers should also receive those benefits. How can they compete equally with English competitors which have had the benefit of water supplied by companies whose debts have been written off?
While clause 54 places restrictions on the ability of existing authorities to enter into contracts that exceed £1 million—and if they go beyond 31 March 1996 the limit will be £100,000—unless approved by the successor body, where does that leave the status of undertakings given by a number of water authorities to the Secretary of State two or three years ago with regard to an extensive programme of capital investment required to meet European Community requirements?
While there is dismay across Scotland about the responsibility and accountability for those services being taken from elected people, there is deep scepticism in the islands areas about the reforms of water and sewerage. Problems relating to the delivery of those services are complex and there is little confidence that a remote bureaucracy will be able to understand them.
When Orkney's water was previously supplied by the North of Scotland water board, there was an underestimate by a factor of five of the daily consumption of water by cows. That could make a huge difference to the supply and engineering of water services. We have no guarantee that similar mistakes will not be made again. Different charges that can be made in different circumstances are of particular concern. What safeguards are to be offered, not just to the islands areas, but to remoter rural parts, that they will not be charged heftily by authorities which have the power to charge differentially?
While the islands authorities do not change—apart from the fact that the title "islands" becomes a geographical description rather than a council description—it was much easier when we had a generic term to describe those authorities to adapt legislation and devise solutions to meet different circumstances. I accept that on some occasions the Government did that with regard to FE colleges and the provision of housing for teachers in remoter areas.
The ability to make distinctions to meet particular circumstances may be lost when those authorities are like every other council. The Montgomery committee endorsed the success of the islands areas and urged the Government to "consolidate, develop and extend" their powers. The Bill takes them in the opposite direction. If the islands authorities make specific points during the progress of this legislation, I hope that they will receive sympathetic attention from the Minister and his officials.
The islands authorities persuaded me to support single-tier authorities and the policy of my party involves single-tier authorities, as has already been said in the debate. We are generally disposed towards such authorities, but not to authorities that are motivated purely by partisan and political reasons. We see such authorities within the context of a Scottish Parliament. As my hon.

Friend the Member for Gordon said, those authorities will not suck powers away from local government. They will take the powers of this Parliament to deal with Scotland's domestic affairs and place them where they can be properly, adequately and democratically accountable.
We want that decentralisation of power from the House to a Scottish Parliament. We do not want to support a Bill which continues the trend of centralisation. Nor do we wish to support local authorities that will continue to be elected by a corrupt electoral system which weakens the accountability of the councillor to the people he represents. For those reasons my right hon. and hon. Friends cannot support a Bill which will lead to the emasculation of local democracy in Scotland.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I begin by apologising unreservedly for apparently breaking parliamentary procedures with regard to a press release. I will make sure that that does not happen again. Should I become aware that any other Member so transgresses, it will be drawn to the attention of the Chair. As a relatively new Member, I thought that I had grasped parliamentary procedure. Obviously, that was not quite the case.
Having said that, I did take my seat on the right side of the House when I first became a Member—unlike the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who, I understand, did not quite manage to do so. However, having heard the hon. Gentleman's disorientated remarks, I understand how that occurred.
The Bill is one of the most important and long-awaited legislative measures for Scotland. People in Ayrshire have never been happy with the Strathclyde scenario. Strathclyde was a local authority misnomer: there was very little local about it.
The target set by all the candidates in the 1992 election in my constituency was to get rid of Strathclyde and to move towards single-tier authorities. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench colleagues have driven towards that target.
Having heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I hope that his colleagues, who will vote against Second Reading from loyalty tonight, will consider local interests and local involvement in Standing Committee. I hope that they will work in Committee to make the Bill an excellent one for people throughout Scotland.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to the views that will be expressed in Committee, which may logically justify amendments. Over recent weeks, I have had many contacts with local authorities from north, south, east and west. I have had contacts with Gordon, Renfrew, Argyll, the Lothians, Dunfermline, Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick, Kilmarnock and Loudoun. They all supported single-tier local government for Scotland. That contradicts the views expressed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in particular.
We should drive home the message that, if people with responsibility or even influence in COSLA opt for non-co-operation, the people they will damage most are council tax payers—the people who will elect whatever local authorities are established in future—and COSLA's actions will be long remembered. When the poll tax—the community charge—was introduced, people in local


authorities encouraged non-compliance with the laws of the land. That attitude has rebounded in a most horrific way on many hon. Members' constituents.
I hope that there will be a constructive debate in Committee. Part I, schedule 1, will be considered very early in Committee. I can certainly see much—[Interruption.] Nobody has sought to correct anything that I have said today. I regard that as total agreement with all I say.
As for Ayrshire, I am perfectly happy with the current proposals. To an extent, they coincide with the views expressed by all Ayrshire Members at the time of consultation. I wanted a separate south Ayrshire—a Kyle and Carrick. That was recognised in the Secretary of State's proposals. In the main, it appeared that other hon. Members from Ayrshire wanted an all-Ayrshire authority. The Secretary of State has democratically recognised those representations and, as closely as possible, has met the combined views of all Ayrshire Members. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) knows very little about Ayrshire.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: I shall give way very shortly.
I consider that I am the only Ayrshire Member who speaks for local interests in Ayrshire. On that basis, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to modify his plans and create a third local authority, as opposed to the planned two, in Ayrshire. Already, the wishes of Kyle and Carrick have been recognised, with the intended creation of south Ayrshire. I shall offer no change to part I on that point.
There is no reason why recognition should not be given to the wishes of the people of Cunninghame and their elected representatives to allow a free-standing Cunninghame under the banner of a north Ayrshire authority. That would allow the wishes, as I understand them, of Kilmarnock and Loudoun councillors to have an east Ayrshire or a central Ayrshire authority set up, linked with Cumnock and Doon Valley.
Cumnock and Doon Valley councillors preferred an all-Ayrshire authority, but I understand that my proposal is their second preference. Given the lack of support for their idea, they would no doubt be relatively happy with my proposal.

Mr. Foulkes: I am getting a bit confused. The hon. Gentleman says that one authority or two authorities are just the same, but he is now in favour of three authorities, whereas originally he was in favour of two, which was the same as one. I must say that I find that very confusing.
However, I will not accept the hon. Gentleman misrepresenting what other people think. It is absolutely clear—I spoke today to the convenor of Cumnock and Doon Valley, the leader of the district council—that my council supports an all-Ayrshire authority—first, second and third choice. Will the hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that that is the case? He has misrepresented the council. Will he accept that that is the second, third or fourth that he has made tonight?

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's confusion is not new. I consistently find him in a state of confusion in respect of every issue. If he had listened carefully, he

would have heard me acknowledge fully that the first preference of Cumnock and Doon Valley councillors is for an all-Ayrshire authority. That cuts across other Opposition Members' requirement that a Strathclyde authority be maintained.
I acknowledge that Cumnock and Doon Valley would like an all-Ayrshire authority, but, quite honestly, even the confused Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will recognise that he cannot have second, third and fourth preferences that are all the same—it is not logical. However, that does not surprise me.
I ask all Ayrshire Members to back Ayrshire local authorities. Perhaps Opposition Members will support the amendment that I intend to move in Committee, given the opportunity. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) would listen, he would know that I referred to "the amendment that I intend to move in Committee, given the opportunity" I am not trying to second-guess anyone. It would be helpful if Opposition Members would open their ears and listen a bit more.
Let us consider some of the representations that have been made. I am sure that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) will join me in backing the representatives of Argyll district council, who certainly want to go along with the Secretary of State's proposals. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seemed to suggest that the citizens of Helensburgh do not desire to join Argyll. He should listen more to public opinion in Helensburgh. People in Helensburgh very much identify with Argyll. It would do the House well to pick up that point.

Mr. McFall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: I now make a plea for the people of Luss. The community council, which has made strong representations, wishes to be linked with Argyll, and asks for that matter to be taken on board. I commend the measures, which extend the involvement of community councillors. They have played a tremendous role in recent years. I hope that community councillors will extend their involvement in the years ahead.

Mr. McFall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have been talking about issues which affect his constituents.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman talks about confusion. I have never heard the hon. Gentleman comment on the issue affecting Helensburgh. If he went to Helensburgh and listened to the people there, he would find that the implications of the local government reorganisation in respect of education, social work and transport greatly concern them.
Only today, The Herald pointed out that the unsubsidised return fare from Helensburgh to Glasgow is £9, but, because of the passenger transport authority, the subsidised fare is £4·50. When the burghers of Helensburgh realise that £4·50 is being subsidised by Strathclyde every time they go to Glasgow, they will think again. If anything, the local government reorganisation is about services and the quality of services. That message will get through to Helensburgh and Luss.

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. As many hon. Members hope to catch my eye, lengthy interventions will not assist.

Mr. Gallie: I must agree that quality of service is all-important. However, I must point out to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the passenger transport executive will continue under the remit of the Bill, and it will continue to assist his constituents in Helensburgh. When I look at schedule 1 to the Bill, I see some illogicality in the west/mid Lothian situation. I recognise the strong feelings that have come through from Dunfermline.
I will not necessarily get involved in the details of the Bill, but I shall certainly listen with keen interest to the views expressed in Committee by Labour Members. Bearing in mind that this is a local government Bill, I shall certainly listen to the local input from places such as Dunfermline, Cunninghame and Gordon.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gallie: I see that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) wishes to intervene. [Interruption.] Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene. I shall cover a few general issues. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is changing his mind again. One minute he wants Strathclyde; the next minute he wants Cunninghame; then he wants an all-Ayrshire authority ; then he wants to intervene; and then he does not want to intervene. If he wants to get up, he should carry on.

Mr. Wilson: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman's press release of that well-rehearsed paragraph will not be accompanied by actions. I will not get involved in his ravings about constituents other than his own. The people in Cunninghame can sort out their problems without his attempt to influence matters or to make party political capital out of them, so I shall leave that aside.
I shall pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) about the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. Recently, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said that the problem with the Ayr-Glasgow service, which is certainly the busiest commuter route outside London, is that not many people use it. He now tells us that the Strathclyde passenger transport executive will continue as before. Obviously, he has studied the workings of passenger transport executives in England, where a precepting system fails to operate because the PTEs depend on contributions from individual local authorities.
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the proposed passenger transport executive will have access to the same level of funding as the Strathclyde passenger transport executive has at present? If he cannot give that assurance, he cannot give an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. A few moments ago, I said that many hon. Members were hoping to catch my eye, and suggested that long interventions do not help. Obviously, that fell on deaf ears. I hope that future interventions will be brief.

Mr. Wilson: Without an assurance that the proposed passenger transport executive will have access to the same level of funding, the hon. Member for Ayr cannot give

constituents any assurances about investment, rolling stock or anything to do with the Strathclyde passenger transport executive.

Mr. Gallie: Obviously, I shall listen with interest to what Ministers say on this issue in Committee. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not prepared to make promises that I am certainly not in a position to fulfil.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: Yes. I have to say that, if I constantly give way to hon. Members, that will extend the length of my speech.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He made an important statement before the previous intervention. I understood him to say that he wants to be a member of the Committee, and we welcome that. He also said that he is willing to listen to representations.
Bearing in mind that the Standing committee may have a Government majority of one or perhaps two members, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take representations from local groups and county councils in areas such as Berwickshire which think that they are getting a rough deal from the Bill, seriously consider them, and follow with his vote if appropriate amendments are made?

Mr. Gallie: As I have said all along, I intend to listen carefully to the debate. I shall attempt to persuade Ministers along the lines of my feelings, and at the end of the day I will take a combined judgment with my colleagues about the way in which the Bill should proceed. [Interruption.] There is nothing odd about that. I have given an undertaking to listen to representations. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is well aware of the procedures of the House. I shall apply pressure in any way that I can to influence Ministers along the lines of my beliefs.
My interest in the matter is to ensure that people in Ayrshire get their just desserts. That is my intention, and it will be my overriding priority. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I have given him an undertaking that I will represent the views of the people.
When I examine the wider aspects of the Bill, some matters concern me a little. I am happy that the police authorities in Scotland will be maintained at their present size. I am a little concerned about funding, especially as we have seen the constant underfunding of the police service in Strathclyde recently. I should like to hear something from my right hon. Friend about funding arrangements for the police.
I fully agree with the single-tier option for social work. The link between social work and housing is important, and at present there is a massive gap. I believe that social workers and those in housing management find it difficult to bridge that gap under the current arrangements. I look forward to the future when the Bill comes to fruition and the gap is no longer there.
I commend clause 78, which provides that councillors who fall behind in their payment of council tax should declare that and cease voting in council affairs. The matter was raised during debate on the non-payment of the community charge. I welcome that provision in the Bill. Perhaps we should extend the provision to Members of Parliament; we should not simply pick on councillors.
I welcome clause 38, which relates to the designation of trunk roads. I should like to think that the Secretary of State will take a liberal view on this matter in the future and bear in mind the need to give trunk road status to the A77/M77 into the centre of Glasgow. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey).
Another important aspect of the Bill is domestic rate capping. The right of the Secretary of State to determine the levels of non-domestic rating poundage is important for the business community. Domestic capping is also an essential element. I should like to think that local authorities will act responsibly in the future. Capping may well be a useful facility in the early days of the council, when there could be a move towards inflating expenditure in the hope that the Government will take the blame for restructuring the local authorities.
I am puzzled by some of the comments made by Labour Members about the cost of the reforms. When we are reducing the number of local authorities from 62 to perhaps 30 or 35—no one knows the final number, because we are still debating the matter—there seem to be areas where savings can be made. I am not the only person who feels that way; local authorities in Dunfermline, Cunninghame, Kyle and Carrick, Argyll and all over Scotland feel the same way. They have presented their case, which shows savings. That supports the arguments of the Secretary of State.
It is worth noting that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said at one time that the measure would cost £400 million to £500 million. That figure has been moderated to about £200 million, which is broadly in line with the Secretary of State's statements, which suggest that the costs will be about 120 million to 196 million. At last the hon. Gentleman has a figure with some reality about it and that, if nothing else, is to be commended.
I am looking forward with some relish to April 1995, when the electorate will be able to give their commendation to the Bill by going to the polls to elect councillors to become involved in the new local authorities.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of some flexibility. Therefore, will the people who took part in the survey in the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) get the chance to remain within Renfrew district council?

Mr. Gallie: I said a few moments earlier that it is my understanding that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to genuine constructive comments in Committee. That did not really need to be said, as I recognise that my hon. Friend takes great regard of what people say to him. It could be that the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered; whether they are justifiable or not is not for me to say. The points should be raised, and I am quite sure that they will be taken into consideration.
I have not spoken about water, sewerage or a number of other issues. The proposals for water and sewerage are in line with the presentation that I made in response to the Secretary of State's consultation paper. I have no difficulty in living with the three public authorities, and I am glad that the Scottish Office listened and recognised the strength of feeling throughout Scotland on the privatisation of

water. Scotland did not want it, and the Secretary of State has recognised that. I believe that the public authorities provide a reasonable way ahead and I commend the Bill, but it needs a wee bit of amending here and there.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I wish to spend a few minutes on the position of my constituency before moving as rapidly as possible to that of Strathclyde regional council, on which my view is entirely opposite to that of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Some people refer to the wonderful days of one-tier local government in Scotland but in fact before 1975 only the four cities had one-tier local government while the rest was a mixture of district and county councils and boroughs. There was no golden age of one-tier local authorities in Scotland. In 1973, the Wheatley Commission put the bulk of my constituency—Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen—into Glasgow district council. I understand that a decision for a separate council for those areas was lost by just one vote, so in a sense there is a historical injustice because those areas campaigned for a council at that time.
I oppose the Bill and I make no bones about that. Realistically, and like every other hon. Member, I have a constituency interest to look after. My having a view on whether the Bill receives its Second Reading is no worse than, for instance, Glasgow district council having a view on what should happen if the Bill receives Second Reading.
I acknowledge that the Minister with responsibility for local government has recognised that there is a community position in Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen which is different from those areas being a part of a big city council. I am grateful for that, and it would be unfair not to place that on the record. The disadvantages of one-tier local government without a Scottish assembly or Parliament would apply in the same way to a local council for Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen as to any other council in Scotland, and my campaigning for such a council does not mean that I am ignoring the difficulties. In population terms, the addition of other former Lanarkshire areas to Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen would bring the area up to the population size of Eastwood or Stirling, but that is a matter for a later stage.
It is a measure of the desperation of the people in the former Lanarkshire part of my constituency to stop the erosion of their community spirit that they would be prepared to take on a one-tier council. The White Paper stated that King's Park and Toryglen should go into south Lanarkshire, along with Cambuslang, Halfway and Rutherglen. I opposed that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) rightly opposed the inclusion of King's Park in that council.
I opposed the inclusion of Toryglen as it has always been a part of the city of Glasgow and I regarded it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to make sure that the people of Toryglen should not be included in a council in which they had no interest. Others might pontificate and make gestures, but I did my job as a Member of Parliament. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that I was partly responsible for his change of mind about King's Park.
A referendum was carried out by Glasgow district council in the areas concerned. If one added the votes from King's Park and Toryglen, the area would have voted


against its inclusion in south Lanarkshire. When the former Glasgow areas were counted separately from the former Lanarkshire areas, the result was 53 per cent. for inclusion in south Lanarkshire and 47 per cent. against. I asked Glasgow district council not to put the question in such a raw fashion, but to give the people the choice of voting for a local council. In my opinion, the majority would have voted for a local council. If they could not get that, I believe that they would have preferred the status quo of Glasgow district council.
Unfortunately, a Tory and a Labour councillor attacked the council's spending on Cambuslang and Rutherglen. That resulted, in my opinion, in a negative vote for the south Lanarkshire proposal. There is no doubt that Glasgow district council shot itself in the foot. Unfortunately, we are now landed with a situation where the Government can rightly say that the people in my constituency voted for inclusion in south Lanarkshire but I would argue that they voted for that only because they were not offered a better choice.
There is a separate identity in Cambuslang and Rutherglen. While people there are certainly no better than Glasgow people—because people are people—they have a different identity and I make no bones about that. We must look at the gerrymandering aspect of what the Government have done, because it is certainly gerrymandering: the Government want to make sure that the Tory enclaves are kept so as to allow Tory councillors to win elections. The Government have totally avoided the issue of costs in the debate. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities analysed the Touche Ross costs and clearly exposed them as false.
The joint boards are undemocratic, which brings me to the thrust of what I wish to say. A while ago, the Prime Minister referred to Strathclyde regional council as a monstrosity. That caused deep offence, not just among political people but among the people of Strathclyde and especially among people who gain from the services provided by the council. I am proud to have been a Strathclyde regional councillor to have contributed in a small way to the council's record in delivering services. I agree that it is not the small local borough so beloved of people in Scotland, but it delivers services to residents and that is what matters.
Another aspect that the Government have not addressed in any of their propaganda is Strathclyde regional council's record of achievement in Europe. Many people take the view that Europe sits there with plenty of our money but that we do not get a fair share back. If everyone followed the example of Strathclyde region and got some of our money back from Europe, we would be a great deal better off.
Strathclyde region has secured £260 million from the European development fund. In addition, it has obtained £90 million in grants from the European social fund. That provided 67,000 training places and helped Strathclyde firms to take on an additional 28,000 employees. If that type of positive approach to Europe were taken by every other council in Britain, never mind Scotland, the financial, economic and employment base of the country would be far better. If Strathclyde goes, the people of Britain and Scotland will lose the progressive, innovative policies of that regional council.
Notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Ayr, one issue that has not been addressed is the concessionary travel scheme for pensioners. More than

400,000 concessionary travel cards are provided for elderly and disabled people, giving them subsidised travel across the region. Before 1975 there was no record of two councils under the old system reaching agreement on a travel scheme. That illustrates what happens if there are too many councils spread about when it comes to implementing and organising a travel scheme. The travel scheme is a first-class example of Strathclyde's reputation for delivering services to people.
Under the Government's proposals, the various services for which Strathclyde council is now accountable will be hived off to unelected boards, including Strathclyde joint police authority, the Mid-Western and South-Western fire authorities, the west of Scotland water authority, the Scottish water and sewerage customers council and so on. Democracy and accountability will be removed in a series of services. There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State will make sure that Tory placemen and placewomen will make up those boards.
With the reduction in size of authorities, especially Strathclyde, there will be a loss of strategic overview of service provision. The closer we get to the elimination of Strathclyde regional council from Scotland's local authority life, the more some of us react in horror. I make no apology for speaking about my area. When I envisage my area without the influence of strathclyde regional council, I see a nightmare.
What has taken place is a disgrace. The Government have no mandate for what they are doing. There has been no royal commission. In a democracy it is wrong for any political party to set political boundaries. The point was rightly made earlier that local government reorganisation will in turn impose political boundaries on the parliamentary constituencies. The Bill has all the hallmarks of a rotten borough Government who have been in power too long, are too complacent and believe that they will be re-elected time and time again. The public will react.
I do not take the view that we have lost and that the Bill will sail through Committee and the House. There will be united opposition against the Bill in Committee. If the Government think that the Bill will have an easy passage, they have another think coming. We shall fight it tooth and nail to save not only Strathclyde but the whole of democratic Scottish local government and to put an end to the dictatorship of St. Andrew's house under the Tories.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), I look forward to the day when there is a public reaction to what the Government are doing. The sooner it comes, the better.
Today is hansel Monday—the day in the old Scots calendar on which employers gave their employees a gift, a good meal and a day off. Sadly, today the Secretary of State for Scotland—our colonial governor—has not heard of hansel Monday. He bears no gifts. He is starving our local authorities of funding and powers, and is trying to write off real local authority accountability within our communities.
The Secretary of State should try to link tradition with modern-day needs and dump the Bill. The sooner he does so, the better. My objections to the Government's proposals are deep, and are founded on the principle that democratic government should be the norm, not the


exception, in Scotland. The Government are inflicting the Bill on Scotland with minimal consultation and even less support. The Bill will be bulldozed through the House and Committee, using the votes of English Tory Members who have no electoral mandate in Scotland or any particular knowledge of Scotland.
The empty Benches behind the Secretary of State—empty even of Scottish Tories, apart from one—show how little the English Members who will appear in the House at 10 o'clock and force the measure through know or care about Scotland. Those self-same English Tories will be packed on to the Committee to bulldoze the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people. That is not what democracy should be about, however the Bill is dressed up.
The House of Commons claims to be a United Kingdom Parliament. The Under-Secretary has often said it. He has often said that every hon. Member has a right to speak on any issue. But the Bill is oppressive and clearly unfair to Scotland. It does no credit to the Westminster system when democracy is crushed by the Executive, who use a whipped Parliament to force through measures which do not reflect the wishes of the Scottish people.
However the Bill is dressed up, it is an attack on democracy. The Scottish electorate rejected the Conservatives and their proposals. The majority English population were never even asked about the proposals. Yet English Tory Members will be herded through Parliament, and the legislation will be passed using the Government English majority.
The proposals on water command the support of no more than a tiny minority of Conservatives in Scotland—a tiny minority of a tiny minority. Yet the Bill is about to be whipped through Parliament with minimal change. Scotland is already being run by far too many non-elected quangos hand-picked by the Government. If the measure is passed, Scotland will have proportionally the fewest elected representatives in the whole of Europe. That is what the Government are doing to us.
The Bill not only erodes our elected local government system by reducing the number of freely elected councillors, but seeks to replace those elected councillors with a handful of nominees hand-picked behind closed doors by the Secretary of State. The Bill also gives the Secretary of State a massive new batch of delegated powers. The most frequently used phrases in this pathetic Bill are "the Secretary of State will make an order", "the Secretary of State may make regulations", "the Secretary of State shall" and so on. The Bill is not a decentralising measure. It empowers the Secretary of State, not local authorities.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong and powerful case, with which I certainly agree. Where does his party stand on the formation of new authorities and small authorities? He said that power will be handed over to the Secretary of State. That will be facilitated by the formation of single-tier authorities in existing districts. Does his party oppose giving single districts multi-purpose status?

Mr. Welsh: I wonder what the trap is that the hon. Gentleman seeks to lay. The question should be solved by looking at the communities of Scotland. The last Labour

Administration solved the problem by creating the Wheatley commission, which undertook surveys and checked what the population wanted. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Rowntree Trust report, which tells us that actual size is not important. Therefore, we can fairly look at communities. That is where I take issue with the Government. Their Bill is based not on communities but on a gerrymandered map.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman tells me what the Rowntree Trust thinks, but it would be a great help if he could tell us what the Scottish National party thinks. Is it or is it not in favour of single-tier local authorities founded on existing districts?

Mr. Welsh: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example. Angus district authority should be such an authority. I can name others, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Hogg: Yes.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman plays the Tory game in his own way. The authorities should be based on—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asks questions and then does not listen to the answer. If the Bill was based on communities, the problems would be sorted out.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: What about Moray?

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman makes the point. Fine, that is no problem.
The Bill does not empower local authorities. It takes power away from them and from the House. There is a mass of European secondary legislation and general secondary legislation sloshing through this place which is not properly scrutinised by anyone who has been elected to the House. Yet the Bill will add massively to that number, because it gives the Government and the Secretary of State massive powers to regulate. It will not be properly scrutinised. I do not call that democratic.
The Tory minority Government in Scotland are introducing a new word to the political dictionary—"langocracy", which means Government by and through the Secretary of State. In the langocracy system, the Secretary of State rules everything. What he does not control directly will be run by non-elected, hand-picked quangos of his choice. In Lang's land, if one does not get the vote of the people, ignore them: take over their assets, appoint one's own people to run things and use one's own inbuilt English majority to bulldoze it through. That is langocracy. That is how Scotland is now governed. It has nothing to do with democracy. The Secretary of State is acting as a governor-general.
The Bill is littered with extra legislative powers for the Secretary of State, with the Greater Glasgow health board situation now being writ large throughout the country. The points made earlier about that, with the House not being able to get at the truth, are a lesson well worth learning and a matter of which the population of Scotland should be well warned if the Bill is implemented.
The Bill is not an enabling measure for local government. It is disabling. Nor is it a decentralising measure. It gives the Secretary of State massive new powers, and means that central Government will take decisions about daily services in Scotland, which should be the preserve of locally elected councillors. The window dressing of decentralisation schemes shows the power that is being taken away. What use is a council office to a town,


which probably had one anyway, when the councillors who are elected by it, are reduced in numbers and powers? That would simply be more window-dressing from central Government, who are notorious for their secrecy and lack of true consultation.
Even the decentralisation schemes are subject to centralised scrutiny by the Secretary of State. I find it objectionable that the Government intend to take billions of pounds of water assets—public assets—in our water and sewerage industries and grab them for the use of unelected, unaccountable quangos, which are only the first stage to eventual privatisation, in which private pockets will benefit.
But then again, that Tory Government invites quango nominees to private fund-raising dinners and pretend that that is perfectly normal and that the invitees are disinterested, non-political spectators. That situation reeks of the goings-on at Westminster, to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) alluded earlier.
The water industry's capital assets were not created by central Government. The figures of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities show that central Government contributed only 0·03 per cent. to them. They are public assets, paid for over generations by local taxpayers, who now find democratic control removed and replaced by a Greater Glasgow health board system over which they have no say and absolutely no control.
I want the Minister to tell us how democracy will be advanced by those quangos. Will public accountability be increased? How can there be greater scrutiny when Scotland's billions of pounds of water assets will be controlled by two, perhaps three, football teams, all hand-picked and nominated by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Their meetings will be held behind closed doors. What is democratic about that? It goes against all the words he used, and shows the basic hyprocrisy of the Government and the hypocrisy contained in the Bill.
According to the Bill, local government does not even need to have an education committee. That becomes understandable if the Government are planning enabling councils and not service-providing councils. That perhaps gives the Government's ultimate game away, because the Tories obviously hope for massive school opt-outs, and the break-up of Scotland's national system of education.
That figures, because the Secretary of State has never been taught in a Scottish school or university. Most of his pals pack their kids off to private schools as soon as they can. I do not think that Cambridge Footlights happened in Scotland, apart from the Edinburgh festival.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Apologise.

Mr. Welsh: What was the other public school in England? I need hardly apologise for that.
If that is the Government's attitude, and if their end product is not to put an education committee in the Bill, I thoroughly disagree with that, given Scotland's traditional importance attached to education.
The boundaries are clearly pochled to suit Conservative party political convenience. I could have used the word "gerrymandered", but "pochled" sounds more appropriate. There has been little or no attempt to match boundaries to communities—far less, real consultation. The motive is plainly gerrymandering. In a two-party electoral system, the Tories now find themselves the third—often the fourth

—party. Their response is change the rules to change the results. With revelations about Westminster council, gerrymandering, like telephone canvassing, seems to have become a tried and tested Tory technique.
My objection is that the Bill is based on hypocrisy. The Government state that Strathclyde region is too big, too bureaucratic and remote, and that therefore it must be demolished. Yet they do the opposite when it comes to creating three monster unelected boards to run water services. On their own argument, if Strathclyde region is "too big and remote", why are they creating the giant Western area water board and running it with 11 hand-picked appointees?
The old Soviet Union would have been quite proud of that centralist dictatorship, which no doubt the Conservative Kremlinists are now introducing. When the Soviet Union has abandoned such a system, it is an irony that it has now been foisted on Scotland by English Tories forcing the Bill through Parliament. While England gets a Commission and thought-through boundaries, Scotland gets a rush job. The last time the Tories visited that on us was when we had the fiasco of the poll tax.
No matter what happens in the Bill, when the Government bulldoze it through, Scottish local government will continue, because of the expertise of the officials and councillors who run it. It will be despite—not because—of this ill-thought-out and disgusting Bill, which I hope the House will oppose.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: I must declare an interest in the debate and in the Bill. The interest is of someone who passionately believes in the ethos of Scottish local government, and who is appalled by these proposals. The Bill is the latest in a long line of legislative sledgehammers that the Government have sought to use on Scottish local government.
There are a great many reasons why the House should not be debating the matter today. Indeed, the Secretary of State should have had the good sense to stop trying to push through the proposed legislation some months ago, when it became obvious that, even among Scottish Tories, there was no consensus on the reform.
Despite the worst efforts of Ministers to rubbish Scottish local government, it is clear that there is no justification whatever for reforming it at this time, barely two decades after the Wheatley commission debated the matter at length and produced a blueprint which had the broad support of all Scotland's political parties.
Despite the black propaganda campaign pursued by the Scottish Office, the Scottish people have refused to allow themselves to be conned into believing the Tory party, which has spent the past 14 years destroying Scottish local government and which has minimal representation on Scottish councils. They do not believe that the Government can be trusted with the future of Scottish local government. The Bill clearly demonstrates, as have other events not a million miles from this place, the political prejudices of a Government determined to pursue a party political interest before the interests of the people as a whole.
My hon. Friends have referred to the Government's hidden agenda on a whole range of legislative issues. Through the Bill, the Government have changed their attitude fundamentally. They have decided to adopt the not-so-hidden agenda and to parade their political bias to


create Tory rotten boroughs across Scotland. The Bill cynically carves out Tory safe havens in Perth and Kinross, Stirling, Eastwood and, of course, in Ayr. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has said, Ayr has now become known in Ayrshire as Gallielee.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the different size and range of authorities throughout Scotland. Has he seen the document entitled "The Future of Local Government in Scotland", produced by the Labour party? It states:
As the first criterion of any reform, there is no one solution for all parts of Scotland.

Mr. Donohoe: I would not argue with that. I am arguing about gerrymandering to create unfair electoral areas, particularly in Ayrshire. When Gallielee was created, it literally meant the promised land to one Conservative Member, until the deliberations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission, got in the way. Perhaps because of that, I understand that even the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is now opposed to the Secretary of State's proposals for as they affect Ayrshire. That clearly suggests that there is no obvious consensus on the Government Benches on this matter.
Gallielee will, none the less, be followed by Fairbairnlee, Forsythlee and Stewartlee, because the local government boundaries outlined in the Bill show how the new structures have been gerrymandered. It has been done to maximise the number of Tory-controlled authorities and try to minimise the number of Labour-controlled ones.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that such political criteria are not those on which Lord Wheatley would have based his reforms. They are unique to Tory Administrations.

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House for an hon. Member to give way to another hon. Member should he name him in his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) to decide whether he should give way.

Mr. Donohoe: Party political prejudice should never be allowed to dictate the structure of local government, because political bias is no basis for good local government.
The Government's central argument in favour of the Bill is that money will be saved and the extent of bureaucracy will be minimised. That was outlined in a report conveniently produced for the Scottish Office by the management consultants, Touche Ross. The report's arguments have been taken apart by costings produced by many organisations in Scotland, which have demonstrated how subjective and irrelevant that report is.
No detailed assessments of the claimed savings were offered in the report. Let us compare those supposed savings with those that Strathclyde regional council currently makes from economies of scale. It spends approximately £60 million each year on fuel. Because of its size, and only because of that, it can negotiate with British Gas, Scottish Power—I am sure that the hon.

Member for Ayr would be able to tell us about that—British Coal or whoever to make savings of 18 per cent. on fuel costs. Next year, that will result in a saving of £11 million.
The council has bulk purchasing power because of its size. Because of that, it saves approximately £20 million per annum when purchasing other products and services. That means that it makes a total saving of £30 million each year. Compare that with the new authorities, as proposed in the Bill, which will find themselves paying between 10 and 20 per cent. extra for products and services. That will add £50 million each year to the costs of those new authorities. I should like to know from the Secretary of State whether those costs were included in the Touche Ross report. Are they part of his justification to initiate the reform of local government?
According to the Bill's financial memorandum, savings of between £22 million and £66 million per annum will be gained from a structure of 28 unitary authorities. Even if that is to be believed, no mention is made of the continuing costs I have mentioned, which will cancel out, at a stroke, the Government's supposed savings.
In stark terms, the proposed reorganisation can lead only to more cuts in council services. That effect on vital services to the community will be devastating. On top of those cuts, proposed cuts of £330 million have been made in council spending for the years 1994–97. That will decimate Scottish local government, it will cause further hardship and it will pile further misery on the public who rely on good-quality services.
We have already seen the disgraceful decision of the Scottish Office to press ahead, three years early, with the wind-up of the Irvine development corporation. That is a direct consequence of the Government's reform of Scottish local government. It is clear that that decision was motivated purely by the Scottish Office's need to generate income from the sale of Irvine new town's assets in order to try to offset the costs of local government reform.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Irvine development corporation; he should reflect on the efforts of Cunninghame district council, a number of years ago, when it was Labour-controlled. It attempted to persuade the then Secretary of State to give it the powers of that corporation. Surely, under the Bill, those powers are on offer to the local authority?

Mr. Donohoe: That is my reading of the decision. Irvine new town area and Cunninghame will be deprived of £17 million as a result of the winding up of the development corporation, so the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will happen.
When the Secretary of State launched the White Paper, he did not even mention the decision to wind up the Irvine development corporation. The launch was followed by a sham consultation, which ignored the views of thousands of new town tenants. They will now be forced into choosing a new landlord, with all that that means for their tenancy rights and rent levels. People are already bearing the brunt of the Secretary of State's reforms.
The Bill also proposes, almost as a sideline, major reforms to Scotland's water and sewerage services. The transfer of those services to new boards means that their public accountability will be further eroded and that their operation will come under the influence of the Scottish Office. It is sad that that reform is apparently included as


one of the etceteras referred to in the Bill's title. Everyone relies on those essential services for their daily existence. They have billions of pounds of assets, and they employ tens of thousands of people, but they are not worthy of separate legislation.
It seems that Ministers are simply more interested in trying to bury the issue of water and sewerage services in order to limit any further damage to the Government. It is clear that the Government's plans for the water and sewerage system is one step on the road to their eventual privatisation, according to the model used in England and Wales. Again, that reform does not command public support in Scotland, and it is irrelevant to the needs of the Scottish people.
As someone who has first-hand experience, as a Member of Parliament for Ayrshire, of the blundering bureaucracy caused by the Government's national health service reforms, as implemented by Bill Fyfe through the Ayrshire and Arran health board, and of Ayrshire Enterprise's roundabout improvement programmes, which begin to look more and more irrelevant to the economic well-being of Ayrshire, I know that the last thing that Scotland needs is more boards and more Government appointees, on the model proposed by the Scottish Office.
Government by boards and quangos is never a substitute for directly elected and directly accountable local councils. If the Secretary of State is keen to cut red tape and to abolish bureaucracy, he should turn his attention to the NHS trusts and the local enterprise companies which he set up, rather than concentrating on local government, which has proved its worth in terms of delivering good public services.
It is clear that there is no justification for the reforms outlined in the Bill. There will be no savings or public support for the reform of local government and, even if those two factors were met, there is no case for reforming local government on the basis of a party political agenda that seeks to gerrymander new council boundaries for the Tory party's political gain.
Local government is too important an issue for one party to manipulate for its own ends. The Secretary of State should note that and withdraw the Bill, before the House wastes any more time debating legislation that would be better known as the 'Local Misgovernment etc. (Scotland) Bill'.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) is right to say that the Bill's title is a bit of a misnomer. If the Government had a shred of honesty left, they would describe the Bill as the Demolition of Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, because that is the hidden agenda behind it.
The Government do not believe in local democracy or genuine local government because they see those as a threat to their power base, so they are out to destroy what little local democracy remains in Scotland. Their ideal council would probably meet for an hour once a year to dish out contracts to Tory cronies in the private sector and then retire for a liquid lunch.
I do not support in every respect the existing system of local government. It is not perfect, and I am not alone among Opposition Members in expressing a preference for a single-tier system of councils, directly elected by and

accountable to the people. But that is not what the Bill proposes. It proposes not a one-tier system but a weakened two-tier and, in some areas, three-tier system consisting of, first, greatly weakened councils; secondly, joint authorities that will administer many of the important functions in many areas; and, thirdly, in all areas, non-elected quangos to administer the important services of water, sewerage and drainage.
Some of the councils will not be big enough in terms of population and revenue base to provide efficiently for some of the important services, such as education, social work, the police and the fire brigade. I note that the chief executive of Central regional council, Douglas Sinclair, referred to that at a weekend conference. One of the councils to which he obviously referred was Stirling, the third smallest council proposed for mainland Scotland. If the Secretary of State is really determined to split Central region into two, surely it would be more logical in terms of population balance, community ties and transport communications for Clackmannan to be linked with Stirling rather than Falkirk.
There are no prizes for guessing why the Government rejected that option. It would probably lead to two Labour-controlled councils in that area and the Government are determined to do everything in their power to retain a Tory enclave in the Stirling area.
If the Government reject the claims of gerrymandering, whether it be in central or other parts of Scotland, why were they so afraid to refer the whole matter to an independent commission? This is the first time in living memory that such a major restructuring of local government is proposed by central Government with no input from an independent body. In the absence of a Scottish Parliament, the severe democratic deficit that already exists in Scotland will be deepened by the Bill.
I warn the Secretary of State that the way in which the Government propose to force the Bill through Parliament will bring the Government into further disrepute and further expose that democratic deficit in Scotland. It will also reinforce the growing view among the Scottish people that the way that we are governed is an undemocratic farce.
Reference has been made to what will happen at the end of Second Reading at 10 o'clock tonight. Look at how empty the Government Benches are now. At 10 o'clock, hon. Members will be drafted in on a three-line Whip—

Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Canavan: No; I shall not give way because I am making a point.
If the vote were left to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, we would win by an overwhelming majority, but the Government Whip will simply crack the three-line Whip and in will come hordes of Tory Members representing constituencies south of the border who have not listened to an iota of the debate. They do not understand the legislation and their constituents will not be affected by it, yet they can use the system to outnumber us in the vote. Government Whips will also draft hon. Members representing constituencies south of the border on to the Committee, which will deprive Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies of an opportunity to represent the interests of our constituents on that Committee.
That farcical procedure reinforces the case for a Scottish Parliament but, sadly, the Government do not believe in


democracy for Scotland, whether at parliamentary or at local level. The Government's model parliamentary structure is to retain a unitary, over-centralised Westminster Parliament. Until recently, their model local council was Westminster city council, along the road. Look at its track record. It sold off graveyards for a few pence and then misused £21 million of public money to sell homes and buy votes.
Other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, compared the activities of the Secretary of State for Scotland and those of Lady Porter. My hon. Friend was being a wee bit unfair to Lady Porter, because she misappropriated £21 million of public money to gerrymander the city of Westminster whereas the Secretary of State for Scotland is hellbent on misappropriating almost £200 million of public money to gerrymander the whole of Scotland. The Secretary of State is, in fact, a bigger villain than Lady Porter and, if there were any justice in this country, action would be taken against him to recover any public moneys misappropriated in the way that he intends.
Recent events have caused the stench of corruption to emanate from the Government. The Bill is part and parcel of that corruption which is a symptom of terminal decline. However, the Government's days are numbered and, if they do not listen now to the views of the elected representatives of the people of Scotland, they will have to do so when those views are expressed in the ballot box. Later this year, the people of Scotland will give the Government a double whammy at the local elections and the Euro-elections, which will be the forerunner to the knockout punch. The sooner that comes, the better for the interests of the people of Scotland and all the other victims of this discredited, corrupt and totalitarian Government.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: I have sat here all day waiting to speak and I am very disappointed about the way in which the debate has been conducted. Some hon. Members spoke for 15 or 20 minutes and then intervened on other speakers, although many hon. Members were still waiting to be called. What I have to say will not take long because a great deal of time has already been wasted.
I have had the experience of serving on an all-purpose authority and on Strathclyde regional council. I served Glasgow city for a long time and I know what can happen when Governments intervene. The Secretary of State for Scotland kept mentioning Wheatley and other hon. Members have referred to the disgraceful stance adopted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its policy of non-co-operation. I do not blame COSLA, but hope that it will continue to oppose the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State quotes Wheatley, Stoddart and other commission reports but he does not believe in commissions. COSLA echoes the sentiments of every local authority in Scotland—no one wanted reorganisation.
Strathclyde is a very large regional council. I know what that means because I represented the corporation of Glasgow for three years. Strathclyde has a population of 1·5 million and the area of about 66 acres that I represented had 125 public houses and 75 betting shops. Yes, we

needed a commission to examine such planning. The Wheatley commission was set up in 1966 but did not report until three years later, in 1969. Other commissions and committees, such as those headed by Baines, Maude and Paterson, also examined management structures.
How can you expect Strathclyde region or Glasgow district council to respect the Government's proposals? Let us consider what those bodies had to deal with: pupil-teacher ratios, a declining population—[Interruption.] Look at that gang sniggering, especially the bespectacled fellow—the Government Whip—the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). He does not know what hardship is all about, but we saw the poverty and the Rachmanism in Glasgow where your Tory comrade neglected properties. Millions of pounds had to be spent to clear up the mess, and that is what will happen again.
The Government say that one of the reasons for reforming local government is the size of the Strathclyde region—but it is also Labour-controlled. The Government have no control in Scotland. The handful of Tory Members present will be able to vote and to uproot and disrupt council members throughout Scotland. Those people have dedicated years to trying to provide better services. For example, social workers in Strathclyde changed the adoption rules and made it possible for youngsters to live with families, access for the disabled has improved in general and homes for the handicapped have been opened. The pupil-teacher ratio, which the council inherited, has been improved in slum areas such as parts of Glasgow.
I am worried about Glasgow because its population has fallen to 663,000 and the Government want to reduce it further. By rigging the boundaries, they hope to reduce it by a further 47,000. The Secretary of State talked about consultation but the people of King's Park and Toryglen voted 90:10 against becoming part of South Lanarkshire.
If the Secretary of State is serious about reforming local government in Scotland, he must examine why the Wheatley commission was established. Do we want to go back to the 1920s when the Government were telling local authorities to go bankrupt? Any reform must be viable, cost-effective and able to deliver services.
If Glasgow is to survive, there must be a social-economic balance. We cannot provide education and all the other services from a population of 663,000. We must take into account the privileged areas such as Bearsden, Newton Mearns, Bishopbriggs and Milngavie. People from those areas probably travel into the city two or three days a week to work but they do not pay anything towards the city. If the city is to survive, the Secretary of State needs to widen boundary.
Touche Ross was chosen to investigate the cost, but the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy disagreed with one aspect of its findings. CIPFA said that the on-going savings would be £49 million whereas Touche Ross estimated that they would be £120 million. Strathclyde believes that the savings would be minus 17 per cent., and it should know what the services cost.
The Government have yet another figure, so something must be wrong somewhere. Government say that the transitional costs could possibly be £120 million to £196 million but, taking into account the on-going savings over a five-year period, they arrive at a figure of £310 million to £330 million. How can we discuss the reform of local


government when there are four or five different figures? The variation in the figures is one reason, Secretary of State, why you need to abandon the proposals.
There is a ham-and-eggs situation and the Government will fail. You will keep people up all night, disrupt every local authority in Scotland and throw people out of jobs, all because you have not taken enough time or given the issue the necessary thought. We are not necessarily against reform, but you should at least have shown the regional and district councils the courtesy of evaluating exactly the work that they had done.
However, you went in with a sweeping brush and swept aside people who had dedicated themselves to serving the council for 18 years. All of a sudden, their jobs have gone. Of course they are worried. COSLA is also worried and is right to do what it can. No hon. Member believes, Secretary of State, that you intend to keep the water—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "you". The Chair is not responsible for any of the policies.

Mr. Wray: Secretary of State, no hon. Member will agree that the Government do not intend to take water services out of public control. How much money will be invested'? About £5 billion will need to be spent on sewerage and water throughout Scotland. What is total investment now? I read in a paper that about £2·5 billion had been put up front; we are talking about £5 billion or so. What price will the taxpayers, ratepayers and electors of Scotland pay for that generous amount to be handed in to get the percentage from the boards that will run water services? We see it as privatisation of the water industry by the back door.
Secretary of State, you should look twice and consider the state of the water industry in England, the corruption in that industry and where money was invested in that industry. It was not invested in water and sewerage; it was invested everywhere else. The only people who paid for water privatisation were the electors. I hope that, when you pass the Bill, you will ensure that it is honest and fair to the electors of Scotland.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) is not in his seat. I tried to intervene earlier when he made an outrageous attack on council members from Monk lands. We have heard enough accusations in this place from hon. Members who do not come up with any proof of their allegations; they will make them in here, but will not open their mouths outwith this place. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not here to hear my rebuttal. [HoN. MEMBERS: "He is here."] I apologise. I did not see the hon. Gentleman sneaking in from the side.
The hon. Gentleman referred to certain practices, on which I cannot comment. He talked about patronage. He should consider the fact that Conservative Members who were defeated at the last election have been looked after by being given Government jobs and the chairmanships of boards and quangos. The wives of present and retired Conservative Members are appointed to trust boards and health boards. That seems to contradict what he was concerned about earlier.

Mr. Kynoch: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have realised that I quoted

allegations that were reported in several newspapers. Also, I talked about a Labour party inquiry and its findings. Does he disagree with the Labour party's findings, which accepted that there were goings-on that were not reputable?

Mr. Hood: The hon. Member now says that he was only quoting allegations. He obviously does not know much about them. I am not in a position to comment—I do not know much about them either. If he is concerned about patronage, however, he should consider the patronage that has been dished out by his party and he should not criticise others unfairly.
I see that the Secretary of State is smiling. I had a smile on my face myself when, at the end of his speech, he referred to "back to basics". He reminded me of a good lawyer speaking to a bum brief: the local government reforms are unwanted and unnecessary.
What is good about the Bill is its title: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. I would support anything that aimed to improve local government, local democracy and local services. We could have a good debate on how to achieve that, but that is not what the Government intend.
Historically, local government has always protected communities against the excesses of central Government. Perhaps that is why, when this Government were first elected in 1979 under Mrs. Thatcher, they were obsessively opposed to local government. They wanted to have their way, to dictate to local government and to prevent it from providing and setting services for local communities. Historically, Labour authorities have always been able to provide those services. It is difficult today for Labour or other authorities to protect communities from the policies of this Government. Not satisfied with that, the Government are making a further attack on local government and local democracy.
Conservative Members have said that this is a decentralising Bill. Far from it; it is very much a centralising Bill. The Government are obsessed with centralising power. We should consider the position in western Europe—and in eastern Europe, where all the moves towards democracy involve decentralising power down to the people and communities. From day one in 1979, the Government have been centralising power in the hands of a few individuals. Power is not being centralised in Parliament; to say that we are Parliament and that we run the show is a load or nonsense.
There was hypocrisy on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. Some hon. Members—I shall not refer to them as the Prime Minister did, when he questioned their parenthood—were against the loss of sovereignty in this place. They said that power must not be centralised in Brussels, or in Europe, and that we needed decentralisation. They talked about subsidiarity, down to the nth degree of where democracy is. What was meant was down to Downing street and its policy unit: they would not let people have a say outwith that.
As my hon. Friends have said, we are not against change, but we want change for the better. No legitimate change will improve local government unless its first step is to form a Scottish Parliament. That would decentralise power. Surely the way to protect democracy is to pass decisions down to the nth degree. I am proud of the policy of my party, because one of its first acts in Government will be to deliver decentralisation to the United Kingdom, not just to Scotland and Wales. That is what we mean by


people's power. One of the farces on television used to talk about power to the people. That is what democracy is about.
With whom will the power to provide services reside in Scotland? Will it be with the councils and councillors? Certainly not. Will it be with communities and council tax payers? Will they be able to hold people accountable to them? Certainly not. Will it be with unelected, unaccountable Tory-placed quangos? Yes.
We talk about unitary authorities and single-tier authorities. We are not talking about single-tier government. We are talking about replacing the present second tier—the regions, which are elected bodies—with unelected quangos. We are talking about the power that the Secretary of State cannot get through the ballot box in Scotland, so he is taking it through Westminster and vesting it in St. Andrew's house. The powers of the regions will be taken by a governing party which has only nine or 10 seats out of 72 in Scotland. That is not democracy or decentralisation and that is not what we want in our democracy.
Plenty has been said about Strathclyde and not merely here tonight. I remember when the Prime Minister went to Scotland and made a speech pledging support for the exchange rate mechanism—we were kicked out seven days later. In the same speech he said that the Government would get rid of Strathclyde. What has Strathclyde done to be so hated by the Government? My grandfather was a trade union official and he used to tell me, "Son, when the bosses attack you, you're obviously doing your job." Strathclyde council should be damn proud of the fact that this Tory Government are attacking it. It certainly means that it is doing something to upset the Government, so it must be doing its job—preserving services and defending the interests of its electors and of our constituents and communities.
We cannot ignore the fact that the Government's motive for attacking regional councils—Strathclyde in particular—is the same motive that drove them to get rid of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils: that they were all Labour-controlled. The truth is that what they cannot win through the ballot box they intend to get through their policies. It is nothing short of dictatorship.
The education provisions of the Bill worry me greatly. I have a 14-year-old child, who is getting a damn good education out of Strathclyde regional council—an excellent education—as do tens of thousands of other children. What about education for the under-fives? The Prime Minister has been converted to that cause and says that it is now Government policy.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Back to basics.

Mr. Hood: Yes, we might even get back to the basics on education.
Strathclyde spends £42 million on educating 25,000 children under five. That is not something that it should be condemned for—it should be praised. Who will provide community education? The Bill contains no mention of that. Small authorities, whether in Eastwood or elsewhere, cannot make the economics of scale. What about the 45,000 pupils with special needs? I am seriously concerned about the effects of the Bill on education. The Government's real motive for the Bill is that they are again

being driven by dogma. The new local authorities will have to force schools to opt out because they cannot afford to provide an adequate education system. They will be forced to abdicate responsibility and accountability for our kids' education.
I am also worried about social work. Hon. Members often mention the housing aspects of social work and the two must be linked, but it is not merely about housing. When we talk about social work we are talking about livelihoods, about protecting people and about life itself. One cannot leave social work to the fancy rhetoric of buying services. Social work is about trying to help the very needy, those with social problems, socially deprived families and offenders when they come out of prison. The Bill will not help.
What about voluntary organisations? My constituency covers more than 500 square miles and thousands of my constituents are involved with voluntary organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, but they need financial support from the community. Members of Parliament and councils are not always there to do the work that is done by that much-needed service, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. Our voluntary organisations will be run on a hope and a prayer and my guess is that they will be severely damaged.

Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was born and bred in his constituency and still have contacts there. He is talking about community care and looking after the elderly. Is he aware that Cornhill house will be closed next year and that no additional members will therefore be accepted into that community? The alternatives are Beattock or Lamancha in Lothian. That is totally inappropriate for the families and the people of the area who are deeply concerned about their elderly parents.

Mr. Hood: Absolutely. I am well aware of that problem and I am making representations on the subject. It is not helped by the financial constraints that have been placed on local authorities. The care in the community provisions cause us great concern. The Government have dumped that policy on local government and now they are saying, "It's your baby." They are walking away and washing their hands of it as they have done all too often.
Public transport policy is also worrying. I mentioned the size of my constituency. As it covers more than 500 square miles, roads and transport feature strongly among the services needed by such a community. The statistics are provided in an excellent brief from Strathclyde regional council. As is probably always the case, negative news gets better coverage than positive news. Strathclyde has an excellent record on transport and roads. I am sure that hon. Members often write to the council to complain about this, that and the other, but its record on some things is excellent, especially on transport. Who will provide travelcards and help with bus fares in the constituency?
I was a local councillor in Newark—now it is Newark and Sherwood—in the east Midlands, where I was a member of a hung council. The power went to and fro. We were in opposition, then we would be in government for six weeks, but would have to resign and let the Tories take over again and so on. I remember negotiating with four independent farmers—who usually voted Tory. They put us in power to set up a travelcard scheme under which we paid half the fare. The scheme had a tremendous impact and was a great service to the community. It did not merely


provide a worthwhile service for the elderly and disabled but had a large impact on employment. We have heard from the Government about some of the consequences for employment. They are running away from reality if they do not realise that the Bill will have majjor consequences for employment. There are 400,000 travelcard holders, which means 400,000 people using local transport. If the scheme goes, many jobs with that excellent service will go, too.
The council also has—I speak again as a rural member of Parliament—an excellent dial-a-bus service. When one cannot walk a hundred yards but one can get a bus down into the local town to do a wee bit of shopping and have a wee bit of a day out, it means a lot. One can travel by that bus from Biggar, where the mother of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) lives. She probably tells her daughter that she votes for the Scottish National party, but I daresay that she will vote Labour and not tell her about that. It is a great service to a community. All those services are put at risk by the nonsense and gerrymandering of the Bill.
Then there are the great problems of rail transport. Carstairs is in my constituency. Sadly, the railway has been run down over the years. We keep arguing and writing to the Minister. I see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is in his place. He has had loads of letters from me and my constituents about preserving the excellent service to Carstairs.
We also need to extend rail services into the rural community because we have to provide sustenance for rural communities, not just for travelling for leisure, but to improve the opportunities for travelling to and from work. I fear that if the excellent rail services that are provided by Strathclyde regional council go, as they may well do, in whatever form they come back it will not be up to the present standards. That would have a devastating effect on our community.
I have taken the opportunity to mention but a few of my objections to the Bill. I will resume my seat by saying that it is a bad Bill from a gerrymandering, bad Government.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Having been a councillor for 16 years on Midlothian county council and, after the Wheatley report, a regional councillor in the Lothians, I was aware of the prior organisational problems of local authorities. I object, however, to the Secretary of State for Scotland stating that the consultation was equivalent to the Wheatley inquiry. It is an insult to Lord Wheatley and it is not factually and historically correct. Had there been a Wheatley-type inquiry, many of the anomalies in the Bill would have been eradicated because common sense would have prevailed. Hon Members should not blame Wheatley for what happened to local authorities after his inquiry because much of the Wheatley report was ignored and it was changed in the House before it was implemented.
The reorganisation of local government in Scotland and especially in my region, the Lothians, is not top of the priority list of people who are in need and it is certainly not top of the priority list of Scotland. There is a great desire for a greater say in the autonomy of Scotland and for a Parliament in Scotland. Conservative Members have repeatedly said that the Labour party had in its manifesto that we were in favour of a one-tier authority, after the placement of a Parliament in Edinburgh or in Scotland as

a whole, because there would be debate, discussion and inquiries and everyone could be consulted about the type of local authority that would suit their region. The excuse has been made that a one-tier, all-purpose authority simplifies the role oflocal government to the people. It may do so in theory, but I do not think that that is what has motivated the Government.
The Bill is a bit of a farce and it is stripping the responsibilities away from the local authorities.They will lose the police, fire, water and drainage services, in some areas they will have to have joint education authorities and they must come together for strategic planning. We are back to the bad old days when they used to hire the McEwan hall for strategic planning. I went there with the local authorities in the Lothians area. If there were strategic planning matters there was a whole delegation from burghs and God knows where. We had to have a whole host of people.
The chairmen of the quangos will be appointed by the Secretary of State, which certainly does not add to local autonomy or democracy. When I heard the Government saying, "We shall make them accountable to the ratepayers," with rate capping and all the Government's other activities, financial or otherwise, I remembered when we stood by our rates and were voted either in or out of office because of the rates. People were well aware that they either got services or they got no services and low rates. They could pick whatever person they wanted if that was the policy—and many of them did.
The interference with the autonomy of local government is unbelievable. It is centralisation gone mad. If hon. Members do not believe me, I refer to a letter in The Scotsman on Friday, not from any radical left-wing group but from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. They say that the Government are undermining democracy in the police service because a chairman will be appointed by the Secretary of State to talk about, interfere and, yes, take instructions on what type of policing is carried out. In other words, there will be a centralised situation. The letter states categorically that they are very unhappy and that the Government should rethink all aspects of that plan.

Mrs. Ewing: From a sedentary position I mentioned the fact that the Secretary of State appeared to attack that today in The Scotsman. That seems wrong, given that there has been no consultation about that piece of legislation.

Mr. Clarke: Who else can the Government annoy? They have annoyed the Prison Officers Association lately. Now it is the police. I wonder who else will be alienated by the Government. There is no one left. I do not know of anyone who has not been alienated by them in some respects.
The geographical hybrids suggested by the Secretary of State pertaining to my region, Midlothian—West Lothian and East Lothian or part of East Lothian and the amalgamation of that part is impractical and, in our opinion, unnecessary. This corridor of eight or nine miles—I call it the Rifkind-Lang enclave—is nothing to do with Bosnia but to do with a Tory enclave separating us geographically from Midlothian and the Pentland hills and it is nonsense. Everyone knows that West Lothian has a partly developed new town with a population of 49,000


people, and that the biggest town in Midlothian is Penicuik which is three times smaller. Where do we base our headquarters? Where would be the geographical lead, bearing in mind that the nonsense of people having more access to local government would be turned on its head if the plans were to go ahead?
In the past, Midlothian county council had its headquarters in Edinburgh. That will not be helpful to the people in terms of fostering local identity in the community. I suggest that it is a non-runner. West Lothian has a population of 146,000 people and is a reasonable size. If one takes Mid and East Lothian—the whole of East Lothian—into account, one has a population of 165,000 people, which is also a reasonable size. The policy could work only if we put Berwickshire back into the Borders, where it belongs and where it wishes to stay. I hope that the Secretary of State and others will take cognisance of the feeling generated in that part of Scotland.
It is proposed that there should be an East Lothian and Midlothian trust health board, which will extend across the area about which I am talking. The present education area is acceptable and does not need to extend into the Borders. Our mutual borders connect anyway.
One of my worries, which I am sure is shared by everyone, is the cost of the changes, and the burden on the taxpayers and especially on the ratepayers. If we do not get the formula right for the people, they will bear an unnecessary burden for many years. If we do not get it right, we shall lose services. It is said that some can go to another authority, or that authorities can amalgamate. Can they? What price will be paid? How jointly will decisions be made? How much coercion will there have to be? How much priority will the people who have to go cap in hand receive?
One example of the nonsense talked here today was the proposal for the amalgamation of West Lothian and Midlothian, and for the amalgamation of part of East Lothian with Berwickshire. The Secretary of State must listen to common sense, and I hope that he will. He kept saying that various matters would be dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Committee will not be a secret service Committee and that matters will not be dealt with clandestinely. I hope that the Committee will be given time, and that every aspect covering every area in Scotland will be given the same priority.
The people of Scotland look to us to salvage something that makes sense out of the Bill. Scoring points off one another will achieve nothing. However, one or two anomalies have cropped up. What will happen in areas in which the local authority is the largest employer? Are local authority employees still barred from taking office? Will the vast proportion of the population in rural areas be barred from taking office because they are employed by the local authority?
When do we intend to start paying councillors a salary? When do we intend to stop the nonsense of giving them so-called "expenses"? We treat them like messenger boys. Councillors are responsible individuals. If the Government can give fees to people on quangos who have not been elected, they can give proper salaries to councillors—and I mean proper salaries. People who would otherwise

consider standing for office may not do so because they cannot afford it, because they see that there is no career for them and because their pension rights will not be protected.
Are our councillors to be old-age pensioners or Tory wifies who happen to be married—[Interruption.] I use the word "wifies" because I am referring to women who are married to rich gentlemen who are too busy to take office themselves. Are those the councillors we want? Are we to have councils that meet on a part-time basis in the evening—pseudo-community councils with no proper responsibilities? Is that what we are aiming for? No. We want responsible, dedicated men and women. We have such people now and many have made severe financial sacrifices to do their jobs. It is no laughing matter. It is a serious business. Those issues should be considered along with the reorganisation. If it is a proper reorganisation, they will be considered. I wish the Committee all the success that it deserves and I hope that we shall not face the prospect of, as some of my hon. Friends have said, a gerrymandered, blinkered and ideologically bigoted reform.

Mr. David Shaw: I support the Government's proposals for reorganising local government in Scotland, because local government is important, whether it is in Scotland, in England or in Wales. Local government costs about £80 billion per annum. We must ensure that we are getting value for money and that we have efficient structures in local government, whether in Scotland, in England or in Wales.
Many of us are concerned about bad authorities, wherever they are. We all rise to make points in the House when we hear about bad authorities. I know that many people in the Monklands area will be pleased to see the demise of that local council under the Government's proposals. The council's practices are thorougly undesirable and should be condemned by all hon. Members.

Mr. Wray: Does the hon. Gentleman feel the same way about the misdirection of £21 million in Westminster, which is being investigated now, as he does about Monklands?

Mr. Shaw: I can honestly say to the hon. Gentleman that, if anything were proven in Westminster, I, along with everyone else, would condemn the situation. However, nothing has been proven at present; there is a series of allegations.
The position in Monklands has been written about and accepted widely. The provost's son, daughter and son-in-law are employed by the council. The brother-in-law, son and son-in-law of the leader of the council are employed by the council. The former provost, who was the election agent for the Leader of the Opposition, has his brother employed by the council. Another councillor has his daughter and sister-in-law employed by the council. Another councillor has his wife and nephew employed by the council.
Another councillor has his cousin, his brother-in-law and his sister-in-law employed by the council. Another councillor has his wife, his daughter and, it is believed, six other relatives employed by the council. I have not mentioned another four councillors, each of whom has a relative employed by the council. In total, about 25 close relatives of councillors are employed by Monklands council.
That employment was more than a coincidence; it did not happen by accident. There was a system of pink and green forms. The general citizenry of the area got pink forms, whereas the families of councillors got green forms. As a result, they were efficiently employed, more quickly than anyone else.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Shameful.

Mr. Shaw: It was a disgraceful practice. My hon. Friend says it was shameful. It was such a bad practice that even the Labour party, when pressed by many of the local ward committees, instigated an inquiry and a report. The Labour party, in what was seen by many to be a substantial whitewash, could not help but say that the procedures operated by the council left councillors open to criticism.
There has been far more than just openness to criticism. Everyone says that it is disgraceful and shameful for so many councillors to have been able to get jobs for so many of the close members of their families. People feel, therefore, that local government reorganisation in that area of Scotland will be of immense benefit if it does away with the practice of nepotism in employment.
There is also concern about the planning regulations in the Monklands area. Some 14 rules in the local plan were breached by a developer. 'This was no ordinary developer; it happened to be the leader of the council. He breached 14 rules in his own council's local plan—an amazing state of affairs. Many other developers cannot understand why their planning applications are turned down while the planning applications of the leader of the council are approved with such speed and such ease, even when they breach 14 rules in the local plan.
People in the Monklands area are also anxious that local government reorganisation should prevent financial abuse. They were worried when the council leader had a property acquired by the council at a very good price. They were worried when that councillor went on to invest the proceeds in a business that resulted in a Scottish Development Agency loan and in the Government having to write off £44,000.
They were worried about a councillor being in a position of such power and about how council structures could result in that position of power, enabling a nursing home to be developed and enabling a £2 million project to be developed. The taxpayer, the council tax payer and the ratepayer lose at every stage of the development of that £2 million project.
Mysteriously, companies lose money and go into liquidation and we find that the council loses money on the way as a result. These are strange affairs, which I hope will yet yield a proper investigation and a police inquiry.
We also find that there has been a £20 million bias to Coatbridge away from Airdrie in the expenditure of recent years in Monklands district council. Therefore, the proposed new council, hopefully, will have less political bias in the area, and, in consequence, the citizenry of Monklands, West and Monklands, East hope that they will have a better authority to manage them than they have at the moment.
We are also concerned with the structures of local government and the way in which it can have an unreasonable, unrealistic and nonsensical control over officers. Every local authority elected official needs a certain control over its officers.
There is concern about how, in the Monklands area, the council leader managed to walk away with a £1,000 cheque, which he paid into a personal bank account, when the cheque was issued by the council to a local builder. It is staggering that such an incident could occur and for the council officers to say that it was their fault, when the leader of the council picked up the cheque himself and paid it into his own bank account.
Why are the council officers taking the blame for something that is nothing to do with them and when it should be the responsibility of the council leader? Again, we must question whether a proper inquiry and investigation of such matters are taking place.
We must also be concerned about the degree to which councillors such as those in Monklands can engage in loss-making projects. The heritage centre and various other projects in the Monklands area are losing the council vast amounts of money. The projects have not been properly discussed at council meetings. Those discussions have taken place behind closed doors. The local Labour councillors do not encourage discussion of those loss-making activities, despite the fact that most of the top-ranking Labour councillors are involved with the boards of directors concerned. The affairs of those companies are carried on in secrecy, well away from the council.
The citizenry of Monklands get to hear about the losses only when they are reported in the local newspaper, which at one stage, pushed by the Labour leader, the council was thinking of suing. In the end, through its columns, the newspaper persuaded the citizenry of the area to object to it, and consequently persuaded the Labour group to withdraw its approval of the Labour leader's litigation funded by the council. That was appalling, and no way in which to run a council or a local authority in Scotland or elsewhere.
My final concern about the way in which the local authority in the Monklands is run under present regime concerns housing repairs. It was well established that certain houses in the area were having repairs carried out. The repairs were allegedly completed and a grant was claimed from the Government on the basis that work was allegedly done. However, the work was not done, it had not been completed and improper pressure was put on certain people to sign that the work had been done. There needs to be a thorough investigation into that matter before Monklands council passes into a new authority.
There is no question but that the people of the Monklands area want to see a new council, and that they will be pleased with the changes that the Government are proposing. They want to see the Bill enacted, and I hope that it will not be delayed in Committee.
My constituents in Dover, and the people of Scotland, need to see radical change in local government in England, Wales and Scotland, so that we can get better value for money out of our local authorities. We are all appalled by what has gone on in Monklands, where the local authority is badly run by bad Labour councillors; they should be ousted from control of that Labour authority.

Mr. Thomas Graham (Renfrew, West arid Inverclyde): Tonight, we are discussing one of the most irrelevant Bills. It is being foisted on the people of Scotland and is utterly unnecessary. We are fiddling the


future of local government and finance when Britain is suffering from the burden of a £50 billion debt, which has been created by the mismanagment of the Government. We will not see a good proposal for local government from such a bad central Government.
I was a councillor for the Renfrew fourth district council—a small fish in local government, but near to the local people. I was a councillor for Strathclyde regional council, which was big local government, but not bad. I remember the day when I spent my time in Strathclyde and felt that I was contributing something worthwhile and that the services provided by Strathclyde were among the best provided by a local authority in Great Britain.
The Tory party's hatred of local government in Scotland is due to the fact that they cannot win enough seats there. They have not managed to win the confidence of the people of Scotland, so they see Strathclyde as big and bad because they cannot control and manipulate it, and because they are not the people involved in delivering good services to the community.
The Prime Minister said that Strathclyde was a monstrous authority. He should get "back to basics" and make a wee study, and he will find that, throughout the years, his Ministers were telling folk all over the world how good Strathclyde regional council was. The past two Secretaries of State for Scotland regularly said how good Strathclyde was.
However, the symptomatic problem with the Tories is that they have never supported local authorities anywhere where a council has been elected by the normal electoral method, such as the Greater London council, which they abolished. One of the proposals for Scotland will clearly abolish Strathclyde and is obvious gerrymandering to anyone who has some knowledge of local or central Government. The editorial of The Herald said:
basic or not—against local government. The main aim has been fairly obviously to dismantle Strathclyde region, despite its record of responsible behaviour during the years of Conservative government.
The Minister knows that that newspaper is not a Labour party organisation. It may not be a Tory organisation either. However, it is certainly spelling out the message to the Government that gerrymandering is not on, and that the Government's whole aim is to abolish Strathclyde.
As I said, the Prime Minister called Strathclyde a monstrosity. I remember the days of monstrous local government in Scotland, when there was a move to abolish it and make local government more accountable to the public. It was reorganised, and very small local authorites were abolished which were never in a position to provide many of the services which we now receive. The Minister knows well that I served on the Renfrew fourth district council, which was too small to deliver services.
That reorganisation went down the right road. Strathclyde is a good authority and it is also on the right road. However, I do not believe that anything should just be left to roll along. I believe that improvements should always continue to be made, and that reviews should always be made. We are continually reviewing our own lives, so there is no reason why we should not keep improving local government and ensure that there is district machinery.
Strathclyde was a moderate council. It certainly was an innovative council. Its deliberations were always

moderate, and it never sought confrontation with Government, be it Labour or Tory. It aimed to deliver the best possible services for the people it represents. It was a flagship Labour authority. I am proud to have been a Strathclyde councillor and to have served under some of the greatest local councillors, such as the late Dick Stewart, an amazing man who dedicated his life to improving our society.
What pleasure do the Government take from setting up a gerrymandering local government boundary? There will be a change of Government. A Labour Government will be elected, and they will repeal the damage that has been inflicted by this Government.
The other night, I sat here trying to take part in a debate on the Non-Domestic Rating Bill, which the Government had guillotined. People and businesses in Britain wished the Bill to be fully debated, but the "back to basics" policy came into play, and the Leader of the House decided it was back to bed for Tory Back Benchers. I understand that Tory Whips were phoning around to ensure that all the heads were on the right pillows. I am sure that they had a problem finding some of them.
We had a great folk singer who sang of the Dunlopillo in the sky. Many Conservative Members will be spending their time with a Dunlopillo in the sky and we shall be in government, because they will be rejected by the electorate, especially in Scotland.
The Government are putting us back to the wall. Scotland has good local authorities, with some wonderful characters and hard-working men and women, who have served them for many decades. Their experience, voices and opinions have been cast to the wind. Many Tory and Liberal Members have objected to this proposed reorganisation.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Name them.

Mr. Graham: The hon. Member wishes me to name them. I will ring them up after the debate and print their names in an early-day motion.
The Government are in a big enough mess without making a mess of local government in Scotland. We have had Iraq gate, and Westminstergate, and now we have Langgate. It is a big gate. I assure the Minister that the Bill will be exposed to the people of Scotland as a measure that will lead to bad, costly government. The people of Scotland will beg Labour to repeal it and to return to the common-sense government that they have been used to for the past 20 years.
The previous Prime Minister was going to abolish quangos. What did we see? They nearly filled Wembley with quangos. We have thousands of quangos, costing millions of pounds. In future, in Scotland we shall nickname them not quangos but "Langos". Asil Nadir may be over in Cyprus, but the Secretary of State's paid-for Tory boys will be getting a wee bit of dross to fill their buckets and to ensure that the Tory party gets some funs to put up a wee bit of a show at the local elections.
I do not want to take up all the House's time. I believe that the Government's policy on local authorities, especially in Scotland, is fatally flawed. The Secretary of State made a very sweeping remark: that the people of Scotland do not like their local authorities. Renfrew district council asked a neutral, professional organisation to conduct a survey on its behalf. Its findings of satisfaction were: refuse collection, 86 per cent., street cleaning 47 per


cent., libraries, 85 per cent., parks and open spaces, 63 per cent., and swimming pools and sports centres, 73 per cent. Overall, 62 per cent. of folk felt that their services were all right. Renfrew district compares well with other district councils in Britain.

Mr. Gallie: Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Renfrew district council, may I assume that he will support its plea to become a single-tier authority as opposed to Strathclyde's position?

Mr. Graham: I wish that I could propose what I would like to see for local government in Scotland. It certainly would be a million miles from this. It would suit the needs of the people I represent.
Renfrew conducted a postal poll, to which 79·5 per cent. of people responded. It covered Ralston, which is part of the Paisley, North constituency, Dykebar, which is part of the Paisley, South constituency, Parkhead, Neilston and Uplamoor, which is in the Minister's constituency.
In Ralston, 82 per cent. of people voted to stay with the council. Ralston has always had a Tory councillor, so one would not expect 82 per cent. of its people to reject the Government's boundary proposals. In Dykebar, the figure was 91·2 per cent., and in Parkhead and Neilston, which is in the Minister's constituency, it was 78·5 per cent.
What an indictment of the Government's gerrymandering of the boundaries. Ordinary men and women call it gerrymandering. They have seen through the Government. They have seen through the Tory party's plans to decimate our local identities.
The Secretary of State will reap the harvest at the next general election, but before that there will be the European elections. I am sure that we will wipe the floor with the Tories in Scotland. There will be none left.
I conclude by referring to an article in the The Herald by Claude Thomson, who covered local authority matters for many years. He is a journalist who is respected by hon. Members on all sides of the House. In that article, Mr. Thomson wrote:
All but the most ardent opponents of regionalisation acknowledged that Strathclyde has performed much better than the authorities it superseded.
The article concluded:
When the definitive history of Strathclyde comes to be written setting out not only its successes but its admitted shortcomings I have no doubt it will stand proud comparison with whatever succeeds it.
Even at this late stage, I call upon the Tory party in Scotland and on Tory Ministers to turn back and listen to the will of the people in Scotland, to return to sanity and to leave us alone.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. During my time in the House, I can hardly think of another piece of major legislation in respect of which the speeches from the Government Benches were so pathetic and desultory in their attempt to present a rational case. In the Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw) we had respectively the bland, the bizarre and the plain bonkers. If they represented a selection of the cases that can be made for the legislation, it reflects very poorly on the Bill.
The false premise on which the Bill proceeds is that somehow we are returning to single-tier local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen

(Mr. McAvoy) and others have said, there never was single-tier local government in most parts of Scotland. All the Government's problems flow from that falsehood. The attempt to balance what cannot really be balanced produces the difficulty in providing authorities that are acceptable to the great majority of people in Scotland.
If an authority is small enough in geographical terms to be viable, the population is often not in keeping with that. For example, in the highlands there is a small population in a huge geographical area while there is a perfectly viable, and perhaps too big, population in Ayrshire for a single-tier authority. As a result, with the kind of balance that the Government are trying to strike, local government services and the places from where they are administered would be taken further away from the people who are represented. That is certainly true of my constituency.
For example, if an all-Ayrshire local authority had district council responsibilities, the centre of that authority would be much further from the people than at present. The same criticism applies to the north Ayrshire authority that the Government suggest for my constituency.
There is nothing new about the dilemma. It is precisely the dilemma that the Wheatley commission examined almost 30 years ago. That commission was faced with the fact that a plethora of authorities had been created by the forces of history. These included district and town councils, royal burghs and county councils. While there was clearly an unevenness of pattern, what had to be maintained from the system was the fundamental principle of two tiers. Some services were best delivered at the level of a large authority while other services were best delivered by a small and more local authority.
I am not expressing my personal views here with any force. However, if I had been starting with a clean piece of paper, I would have believed that there was a case for giving more powers to even smaller authorities than are proposed. Some very local responsibillities should best be decided at a local level. There should perhaps be more of a role for community-type councils.
I grew up in Dunoon which had a town council. That was an appropriate level at which to decide some matters which were of intense and burning interest to that community and to that community alone. Other decisions were taken at a county council level. That was a form of two-tier local government.
However, before this ridiculous legislation was proposed, no one suggested that there should be a pattern of uniformity throughout Scotland in respect of which everything would be decided on a single-tier local government level. That is the basic fallacy from which all the other problems flow and that is why there is so much opposition and resistance to the proposals in Scotland.
I believe that the status quo should be maintained. The status quo works reasonably well and it has a high degree of acceptance among the population in the area that I represent. Where does the obsession to change the way in which things operate at the moment come from? Was it a wicked socialist plot to set up the Scottish regions originally? Of course not. The legislation that is now being undone was passed by Parliament barely 20 years ago under a Conservative Government. There are still some Tory Members today who voted for the legislation which created the regions.
In the interim, a much more partisan type of Tory Government has emerged for whom it is anathema that there are authorities which are Labour-controlled and also deeply effective.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the status quo and why it should remain. If the status quo is so perfect and so right, why did the hon. Gentleman's manifesto refer to a return to single-tier authorities? Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he supports a Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Wilson: I support a Scottish Assembly because my party supports a Scottish Assembly. That view was part of the manifesto. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. We contemplated single-tier authorities because there was going to be another layer of government in Scotland and therefore the concept of two-tier government was going to be perpetuated. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in comprehending that. Just because the brief states that he should ask that question does not mean that the question is very good.

Dr. Godman: The gerrymandering nature of the proposals is plainly demonstrated in the treatment being meted out to the proposed East Renfrewshire council and what is going to happen to Inverclyde district council. Thirty thousand people signed a petition which I presented to the Minister just three months ago. Those petitioners begged to have Inverclyde as a unitary council, but that was totally ignored by the Government.

Mr. Wilson: Again, that is the problem which Conservative Members purport not to understand. Of course there is no contradiction in what I have said. The vast majority of people in my constituency and, I suspect, in my hon. Friend's constituency, are not clamouring for the reform of Scottish local government. They wish to maintain the status quo; they appreciate the status quo. Of course they will take up defensive positions if change is forced upon them. In Ayrshire, and in Cunninghame specifically, given the option, the great majority of people would maintain the status quo. The more they realise what they are going to lose, the stronger their opinion will become. But if the status quo is not an option, of course, some people would support an all-Ayrshire authority.
As I have set out to demonstrate from the first day the measure was announced, if the other options fail, a viable case for Cunninghame is supported on a cross-party basis. But the one thing that nobody supports is what the Government are putting forward. That is the key point. There is overwhelming support for the status quo and there is support for other possibilities, but there is no support for what the Government are putting forward. I have repeatedly put that point to the Minister, with all-party support from the council chamber and from every walk of life in my constituency. I hope that that point will eventually be brought to bear.
I wish to go smartly through two or three points and raise a particular interest, which is the future of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive and the absolute folly of what is being done in respect of public transport in Strathclyde. It is one of the issues that will begin to press home upon even the most mindless Conservative Members. People have to appreciate what they have in

order to become angry about what is being taken from them. In Strathclyde, we have the best suburban transport system in the British isles and one of the best in Europe, and we have it because we have a visionary local authority which has the scale and the resources to develop it, invest in it, and put serious backing behind it. If we fragment the basis of that system we will fragment the system itself and it will wither on the vine.
There are now two threats pressing upon the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. One is the pri"atisation of British Rail which, if it were not for the additional grant for which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) has agreed to be a conduit from the Department of Transport, next year alone would add £5 million to fares purely for the reorganisation costs of privatisation. The Minister indicates assent. In the long term, rail privatisation will be a deeply serious threat to the PTE concept. In addition, we have the crazy breaking up of the foundation on which the PTE is built.
I can only briefly explain the point, but it is important to have it on the record. If, under the legislation, a PTE continues, but does not have power to precept constituent local authorities, it will be only as strong as its weakest part. That problem is faced at present by PTEs in England.
Let me give a brief example, mainly from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). Recently, she and I attended the reopening of an old railway line, which has been closed since the Beeching days, in the north of Glasgow, serving communities which can particularly benefit from having such railway services. I am sure that my hon. Friend will confirm that they are already benefiting from them.
The only organisation that could do that was the Strathclyde PTE, which put the money into reopening stations. It was able to do so because it is a unitary body. In future, in order to make such investment decisions to give stations back to the people of Possil, Summerston, Ashfield and Maryhill, the executive would have to have the agreement of councils in east Renfrewshire, Milngavie and Bearsden—all over the shop. They would have to say, "We are prepared to commit resources which are not going directly to the communities that we represent."
I do not believe for one moment that, if that system had been in place, we would have had the wonderful electrification system in Ayrshire. I do not believe that we would be reopening stations at Whitletts and in other parts of Lanarkshire. I do not believe that there would be cross-subsidisation 'between successful Ayrshire lines, for instance, and routes in Lanarkshire which are inherently loss-making but which provide a social service. All that is being put at risk by the legislation. That is a real liberty to take with something which works so well.
At present, most of the anger about the legislation—let us be realistic; the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill is not the talk of the steamie—comes from groups within Strathclyde who realise the damage that will be done and who are apprehensive about the implications. There are people who are most impinged upon by specialist services. There are people who rely on special needs education and on specialist social work services. There are people who benefit from specialist educational services. Those people are beginning to realise the great threat that exists.
However, there is a very big category of people who are next to realise what will be done. Pensioners and others who rely on concessionary fares in Strathclyde will realise that that system, too, will be dependent on the weakest part


of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. There is no prospect of maintaining a unified concessionary fare system if the legislation is passed.
I shall speak briefly about the county in which I spent the first 20 years of my life. I want to put something on the record because I may not participate in future debates on the Bill. It may be time for Argyll to be floated off. If that is the wish of Argyll, so be it. In passing, I shall give the Minister a history and geography lesson. Helensburgh is not in Argyll. It never was and it never will be in Argyll. The Minister can draw as many lines on the map as he wants, but he will never change that essential fact.
No one should ever underestimate what Strathclyde has done for Argyll. My late father worked for Argyll county council until his dying day. Until that day, wage negotiations for officials were a matter of seeing a local councillor; people who did industrial and manual work did not have proper clothing, much less proper wages and conditions; roads were third rate and single track; and education and social work provisions were all on the cheap.
Strathclyde has taken Argyll and its services by the boot-straps in the past 20 years, and a great many people in Argyll who will never vote Labour in their lives appreciate that. To denigrate what Strathclyde has done for Argyll is to denigrate the memory of people such as the late Geoff Shaw, who worked himself into an early grave ensuring that every part of Strathclyde had an equal deal—Labour and Tory; rural and urban. That is why Strathclyde was founded on such a firm basis.
I shall make my next point because I am sure that it will not be the centrepiece of future debates on the Bill. Clause 138 of the Bill is worth a mention. It has only two lines, which state:
On and after 1st April 1995 no shootings, deer forests or fishings shall be entered in the valuation roll".
In the midst of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a reorganisation of local government which few people want,  in the midst of money being squandered in all directions, there is only one cash break. Only one group of citizens will be handed money as a result of the Bill: the owners of shootings, deer forests and fishings, who will no longer be entered in the valuation roll.
I shall say one thing about Tory Ministers. They never forget their class basis; they never forget where their support comes from; and they never forget their role as political wing of the Scottish Landowners Federation. It adds farce to the general insult of the legislation that, while there are so many poor people and those who need housing, communications, social work and education, the only ones who will get a monetary handout under this Bill are the owners of shootings, fishings and deer forests in Scotland.

Dr. John Reid: I am grateful that I am able to speak tonight because this debate transcends the normal details and, dare I say it, the minutiae of politics in Scotland. We shall have to live with the results of the legislation that we pass in the next few months. More than that, the Government will have to live with the results for many years to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, it may not be the talk of the steamie, the clubs, the pubs, the buses or the football grounds at present. But as with the poll tax, there will be an increasing awareness as the practical

implications of the Bill dawn on people, and they will lay the blame at the feet of those who introduced it despite all the evidence against it.
In the few minutes that I have been given, I shall make three main points. The question of cost has been covered effectively by most hon. Members who have spoken tonight. Frankly, I do not believe what Ministers said—that the net cost will be only £50 million. I do not believe what Ministers said not only because it goes against everything that they said previously. We do not have to look in the crystal ball; to gauge the costs involved we need only examine the history books. The examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) illustrate the vast costs which have been involved in the Government's previous escapades.
Democracy has been mentioned this evening. Let me simply say that it is astonishing that Tory Members have managed to do a complete U-turn. They are about to rid Scotland of regional and district authorities which have served Scotland well. We are not talking here about the GLC, the bete noire of the Tory party. Names such as Geoff Shaw, Dick Stewart, Charles Gray or Bob Gould in Strathclyde have not dripped from the lips of the antagonistic Tory central office, and those people have not been branded as being part of the loony left. They have been credited during the past two decades, even by Conservatives, as practical, common-sense and down-to-earth politicians.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: indicated dissent.

Dr. Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There is no historical justification for the Conservative party getting rid of structures which have served Scotland well. There is no justification on ideological grounds either, because the Government came to power promising two things to their supporters. They promised to roll back the state and to extend choice. I put it to them tonight that no Government this century—Tory, Labour or Liberal—has rolled the state on more, or has centralised more, than the present Government. That is part of the tradition which the Government have maintained.
When Conservative Members shout about centralising socialist Governments, let them look at what they have done. They have rolled over trade union democracy and over ordinary individual rights. They have excluded people from the electoral register and have linked the right to vote to the payment of a tax—something outlawed by the American constitution 200 years ago. The measure is but one more step in that direction, because the Government are taking powers away from local government. Whether it is the police, water or sewerage, services will no longer be accountable to people who are, in turn, accountable to the electorate.
Choice is another slogan of the Tory party, although we have now learnt to be rather cynical about Tory party slogans. How is the choice of an old-age pensioner to travel extended by the taking away of concessionary fares? How is the choice of my constituents who live in parts of Uddingston and Viewpark extended by the creation of a new education authority which prevents them from sending their children to either St. John the Baptist school in Uddingston or Uddingston grammar school? That is because we now have a plethora of education authorities instead of a major education authority.
In terms of strategy, someone said to me at the beginning of the process that this was a stupid Bill introduced by people who knew little about local government. I think that that is wrong. This is anything but a stupid Bill from a partisan Tory point of view. It certainly does not come from people who know little about local government. It is a crafty and clever Bill from people who understand local government because it is a Bill which gerrymanders.
The Bill creates local authorities with a population of over 300,000, but also creates one in greater Eastwood and in East Renfrew with a population of 86,000 people. That authority has less people than my parliamentary constituency. The whole plethora of local government apparatus will be created for 86,000 people in the local government area of the constituency of the Minister at the Scottish Office. I refuse to accept that that is a result of anything other than a crafty and clever gerrymandering operation for partisan and biased party purposes.
That is my final point, and that is why it is so important that the Bill be rejected by the Scottish people. It lacks legitimacy. It does not have a structure which has been designed by an independent boundary commission, or which has resulted from a study by a group such as the Wheatley commission. It does not have the legitimacy of the parliamentary boundaries which have been drawn up. The areas of the authorities have been drawn up by the Conservatives themselves.
The proposals will be rejected because this is not government of the people of Scotland, by the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland—it is local govenment of the Tory party, by the Tory party, for the Tory party. The Government demean themselves by doing that, but they do not demean the people who will have to operate under that local government, and that is why it will be overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Scotland.

Mr. Henry McLeish: One thing is obvious tonight. The Tories have taken a terrible drubbing in the Chamber. For many years we have not seen a set of Conservatives so unconvinced by their arguments giving such a pathetic performance to the House. The brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was in sharp contrast with the brittle and unconvincing speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We must surely be reaching a stage at which the untruths which are peddled throughout the country about the wisdom of the Bill are beginning to sink home even with some Conservative Members.
We have heard some excellent speeches by my hon. Friends. They talked about the new towns shambles, which is to continue as part of the local government reorganisation. The Government have promoted unconvincing figures for the cost of reorganisation. We have heard from my hon. Friends about the need for a Scottish Parliament to bring sanity to politics in Scotland and tackle the democratic deficit.
We had a vintage speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). He not only entertained the House but spelled out clearly

the concerns of ordinary people in his constituency. His experience is mirrored by the experience of Scottish Members from throughout Scotland.
The remarkable thing about the debate today is that we are dealing with a thoroughly bad Bill. The time of the House is being wasted by a Government who are no longer in tune with the reality of the Scottish people and their understanding of "back to basics". Indeed, we have a set of Ministers so divorced from that reality that we face three months in Committee dealing with a Bill that will do nothing for the aspirations of ordinary Scots. Indeed, the Bill will be fundamentally damaging to their aspirations.
The Bill is not about improving the effectiveness of government in Scotland. That was made evident in the speeches that have been made tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said earlier, the Bill reeks of political intentions. It is naked in its intent; a shameless effort by Ministers, Conservative Back Benchers and certain of their Tory supporters in Scotland.
It is important to put on record again the reasons why we shall fight the Bill every inch of the way. First, the Bill is of course about gerrymandering. Following the debacle of Westminster and the unfolding controversy in Wandsworth no one can dispute that the Bill is about gaining party political advantage, using taxpayers' resources and creating for the first time the alien concept of safe havens in Scottish politics. It is disgraceful. It goes far beyond any knockabout that we want to see in the House of Commons. The Bill is deeply damaging to the interests of democracy, but, unfortunately, that is the nature of government in Scotland in 1993.
The second reason why we shall fight the Bill is that the Government wish to create the context for privatisation of Scotland's water and sewerage services and take the first steps towards it. It is difficult to find appropriate words to describe such a ludicrous and silly measure. It will do nothing for the quality of life in Scotland and the quality of water and sewerage services. It will do everything to satisfy the zealots who still occupy Conservative party headquarters in Scotland and, dare I say it, to promote some of the right-wing lunacy that we see from Ministers.
There is another issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton said that if the Government start to meddle with local government boundaries they will then be involved in parliamentary boundaries. That is an unforgivable step. It will mean that the concept of local government will be devalued. We lay the blame fairly and squarely on the Government. The Bill aims to ensure that the word "enabling" will start to become part of the vocabulary of Scottish local government. "Enabling" sounds innocuous, but it is about contracting out, privatisation, centralisation and undermining the fabric of the collective ethos of local government, which has been developed in Scotland since the early 1920s.
We have talked today about quangos. After the Peterken and Fyfe fiasco in Glasgow, who on earth would want more Tory placemen and placewomen to pack out the administration of essential services in Scotland? Our last concern is another matter that the Government may shrug off. We are about to embark on preventing 300,000 employees from participating in local government. If the Government do nothing else, surely they do not want to disfranchise one in six of the Scottish work force and one in 10 of the electorate by proceeding with the proposed


crazy reorganisation, without taking on board the genuine concerns of people who not only work for the community but want to contribute in a variety of ways.
Those are our concerns. We have talked about the fact that the politics of that is the overriding consideration for the Government. Why do Ministers want to joy-ride through £7·5 billion worth of expenditure in Scotland every year, 300,000 employees and, of course the valued services that are given to nearly 5 milion consumers? As my hon. Friends have said, the services—often life and death services—are provided imaginatively, represent value for money, are cost effective and delivered by councillors and officials who care, in sharp contrast to the group of mean-minded Conservatives who simply want to denigrate every effort in which they are involved to satisfy their own political whims. It is disgraceful that the House should have to witness such disinterest in attacks.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has said, as has the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that he intends to target English Tories on the Standing Committee, and forecast that some of them might be persuaded to rebel to save Scottish local government. In view of our experience this evening—none of them have appeared in order to listen to the arguments—does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a realistically viable strategy or one that is likely to be successful in the Standing Committee?

Mr. McLeish: I accept that none of the potential recruits to be dragooned into the Committee is before us today, but I remind the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that we shall try to persuade Tories; we shall not go into chambers and do secret deals with them under the pretext of putting Scotland first.
It is sad that the reorganisation will not put an extra policeman on the beat in Scotland, when the Government have presided over the biggest explosion in crime this century. It will not put an extra house in any district council in Scotland, when more than 100,000 people are homeless every night in Scotland under the Tories. Of course, it will not put another teacher in the classroom, where pupil-teacher ratios are still far too high to have the quality of education that we want to see.
We talk about "back to basics", but it is interesting that the Government are willing to put this Bill before the House yet are not willing to introduce a child care Bill. Their irresponsibility could be putting children at risk in our communities. For most Scots, "back to basics" should have a higher priority than the political shenanigans that we see from the Government. It is clear that, for the Tories, "back to basics" means trying to enhance their political advantage whereas most Scots want to see decent services provided by people who matter.
It is evident from the debate that—the Secretary of State should be aware, even though he is completely out of touch—the proposals are not supported by the people. The proposals have been abused by the media, ridiculed by the Opposition, exposed by academics, barely tolerated by the business community and opposed by COSLA. [Laughter.] What more must a democracy do before Conservatives take that seriously? Conservative Members are laughing away, but there have been other developments in Europe where people have fought for freedom and real choices. Conservative Members may laugh but, at the end of the

day, there are some very powerful reasons why we should always want to value democracy first and not indulge in the kind of gerrymandering and contempt that we see.
As my hon. Friends have said, the Government do not learn lessons easily. In his exposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton talked about gerrymandering. I do not want to touch on that matter other than to return to a loony authority that we now have in Scotland called Kyle and Carrick. I shall talk more about that in a minute. But what is the case? What can the Under-Secretary of State say to justify the massive upheaval in Scotland? There is no case. We have not heard one. The Secretary of State is quite happy to talk about the public being confused, about the need to respect old loyalties to counties and about waste and duplication. The real agenda, however, is the new enabling authority role, which is linked with the question of privatisation. We know what that means.
We benefited from the Wheatley commission, because it was set up to consider one part of local government in Scotland which was not working. It was clear that that structure had to be studied, root and branch. In 1973, I was privileged to enter that system and to serve 14 years in local government. Today the position is different, because there is no consensus. I accept that there is a point in considering the idea of single-tier authorities and other options, but the Government have plucked out of thin air their idea, which mirrors entirely their political aspirations. To talk about Wheatley in the same breath as the Government's proposed reorganisation is utterly ridiculous and contemptuous.
One argument that we have stressed tonight is the need for constitutional change. The Opposition have argued convincingly on many platforms that we need a Scottish parliament. We have no doubt that if there was a Scottish parliament, of Scots and by Scots, we could propose a local government reorganisation for Scots without being entrapped by the cosy clique of Conservatives in Scotland. That clique has been trumpeted in Parliament by Ministers.
If one accepts that there is consensus in favour of constitutional change, one has to ask why the Government are not prepared to subject their ideas to an independent commission? If I had a case to make, I would be quite happy to put it to the test. Why does the Secretary of State not have the guts to put his gerrymandering proposals to an independent commission? The answer is clear. The Government know that if their proposals were put to any objective test, they would simply fail. No one will demur from that answer. Conservative Members are slouching on the Benches, but they know in their hearts that they are trying to pull off a political wheeze. [Interruption.] I know that I am being extremely charitable. It is clear that the Government are in trouble.
What about the costs involved? Earlier, the Secretary of State tried to suggest that we were in some difficulty about the costs. We have never seen so many back-of-envelope calculations. The Scottish Office has produced documents that have been simply ridiculed in a modern democracy. It takes an extraordinary degree of unprofessional gerrymandering of figures to arrive at the mess that the Government have produced. Will that reorganisation cost £100 million or £200 million? The Government have then tried to make us believe that it will save £1 billion. How many people in the Chamber have ever seen any savings made from any reorganisation of the post-war period?

Mr. Gallie: Has not the hon. Gentleman, like me, received many submissions from district councils across Scotland, suggesting that they could make considerable savings if they were single-tier authorities with full responsibility for the range of local authority tasks?

Mr. McLeish: The simple answer is no. The costs are an essential and important part of argument. The Secretary of State has conceded, however, that it is a difficult process. If it is so difficult, my hon. Friends and I are willing to concede that, but why on earth are the Government tramping about the country suggesting that the initial costs will be £200 million and that savings of £1 billion will be made? That is ludicrous. No one believes that claim, so the Government have a problem.
Those hon. Members who represent English constituencies and who will serve on the Standing Committee must heed a warning. We have heard a lot about Tory tax increases. It is one of the "back to basics"—they want to tax people more. If the gerrymandered reorganisation for Scotland proceeds, it will simply mean that council tax payers will pay more and more for a reorganisation that they do not want, from a Government they simply despise. That action is illogical and irrational. I must warn those English Members who will serve on the Committee that they will be enacting something for Scotland that they would not have the courage to enact for their own constituencies.
Another issue for debate is emerging in which I am sure the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will be interested. A booklet has been produced by the south Ayrshire authority.
For hon. Members who are not aware of what that is, it is the Kyle and Carrick district council at work. The document may be in contempt of the House because the district council has outlined a timetable for proceedings. It has named the day on which the proceedings will start in Committee and given some other information.

Mr. Stewart: That is more than I know.

Mr. McLeish: The Under-Secretary of State says that that is more than he knows. We want to know who is preparing information for that council. The provost is nicknamed "the Ayatollah"—a new example of the loony right.
The hon. Member for Ayr will be interested to know that the issue was discussed at a seminar on Sunday. That is interesting, but what is really illuminating is that the council has described what it wants to do after May 1996. It talks of "minimalist south Ayrshire" and uses the word "outsourcing", which basically means that it will privatise everything that moves within its authority. Finance, law, administration and information technology skills will be "outsourced". It will outsource planning, roads, estate work and leave all the development to local enterprise councils. It will privatise environmental health and outsource housing and social services. It will opt out every school and get consortia to run every other service.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLeish: I shall be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.
The document highlights what the debate is all about—creating puppet councils that are run and administered by the Scottish Office, to which the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State can send willing underlings like the hon. Member for Ayr to do the Government's

business. It is unbelievable, and we shall ensure that the document has a wide circulation to let the people of Scotland know what is happening.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me because I have not seen the document. However, I am delighted that a local council like Kyle and Carrick is forward-looking enough to look into the future, see what is good for its council tax payers and try to envisage the opportunities that lie ahead instead of behaving like the Opposition, who bury their heads in the sand, believing that money grows on trees and that services can be pulled out of the air. Kyle and Carrick is looking forward—good on it.

Mr. McLeish: "Good on it" sounds more like a football chant. The document talks about ensuring that party advantage is secured so that Strathclyde regional council does nothing in the wind-up. The hon. Gentleman said that he has no access to the document. He can have access to it after the Divisions because we shall ensure that it has a wider circulation.

Mr. Foulkes: Is my hon. Friend aware that Kyle and Carrick district council has already started that process? After a meeting at which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) was present, it proposed to cancel a tender for cleansing and refuse collection, which still has two years to run and was given to in-house contractors. While those discussions were taking place, the provost of Kyle and Carrick council had at least two—perhaps three—secret meetings with a Spanish-based private company that wishes to take over that tender. That is what we shall face under the new privatised Tory councils.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. On 11 January, Glasgow's The Herald carried an article entitled
Refuse Row to be Raised in Commons".
I am pleased to say that, unlike the hon. Member for Ayr who speaks to the press before he speaks to the Commons, I have suggested that that matter will be raised.
Conservative Members may laugh at a document produced by their colleagues but my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) is right to say that the council's actions are illegal. A £3 million contract with two years to run is being torn up and the zealots who now run the authority will bar their in-house team from bidding. To show that Tory contempt exists not only in the House, the provost at that meeting confirmed that he had had private discussions with Spanish contractors.
Why do not Government Front-Bench Members drag in that Tory convenor and tell him that the attempt to bypass compulsory competitive tendering is not on? The Secretary of State has not said anything. Once again, there are double standards—what is good enough for some authorities in respect of CCT is not good enough for the Tory's new flagship authority, the loony right Kyle and Carrick district authority.
We are worried that the reorganisation process will allow councils to be manipulated. If there is one area that sums up the predicament it is my region of Fife. The scenario is this: Scottish Office advisers or Ministers suggested that Stirling must be a single-tier authority because an ex-Westminster city councillor, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), was advising them. They then had to decide how to achieve that end.
First, they decided to chop up Central regional council. Fair enough, but if they did that they then had to decide what to do about Falkirk and Clackmannan. They decided to link them together, but some bright spark in the Scottish Office realised that there was a river between them and that they were not linked. Hey presto, a genius said that they would take Kincardine out of Fife and provide the necessary link. How on earth can that be described as a logical, sensible or sensitive way to reorganise anything? We shall certainly be discussing such issues in Committee.
I conclude by dealing with two issues which give us great cause for concern. The first is quangos. The Government may rubbish people's concern about government by quango. None of my colleagues wants placemen running the key services but, if it happens, the quality of life for people in Scotland will be diminished. Our preliminary analysis of the Bill suggests that more than 100 new bodies—statutory and non-statutory boards and quangos—will emerge, and the creation of three super-quangos is an insult built on an injury. To try to bring about privatisation in such a corrupt manner is bad enough but to suggest that it is taken out of local authority control and given to super-quangos is worse.
The Bill also deals with water, but the Scots do not accept the Government's proposal. They do not want a further acceleration of quango government, but they want a debate about services. I began my remarks by dealing with services, and I shall conclude on that point.
The Government are ignoring the pressing needs of child care, education, transport and social work. We need investment in those key areas. We are lagging behind Europe and other parts of the developed world because we are pursuing the wrong agenda. If the Secretary of State feels that he wants to do something constructive in his remaining few years in that post, he would be well advised to tackle the issue of services.
What annoys the Scots is not only everything that I have described but the way in which Ministers are undermining the collective ethos of Scottish local government. We believe in community and in individualism being developed, nurtured and promoted, and we believe in aspirations being realised through the idea of community and collective provision. The Government are trying to trample those ideas into the dust as they progress with their political agenda.
We shall not rest after the Bill has been given a Second Reading. We shall ensure that the Government have a bruising battle in Committee and that they are exposed on every front. Our objective remains the derailing of the Bill. We shall have success as the Government move towards the next election but, if we do not, we shall have success when there is a Labour Government. Tonight we shall vote against this daft, dangerous and divisive Bill and ask the Government to scrap it now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): When the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) opened for the Opposition he made a number of forecasts. Before the debate he made a forecast, which was carried in the Sunday Times on 12 December, in which he said:
Labour is hoping to recruit right-wing Tories in an attempt to wreck the progress of the Scottish local government bill.
The article continued by saying that they would be targeted, the offensive would be co-ordinated and there

would be discreet discussions. I have checked with my hon. Friend the Whip, who looks less than panic-stricken at the possible gain of right-wing Conservatives in the Labour Lobby tonight. The hon. Gentleman's forecast is about as accurate as many of his other forecasts about the effects of this admirable Bill.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) was in his usual ebullient form. He referred to Fife and local government costs and it is therefore worth reading the odd excerpt from Fife regional council's submission on the matter.

Mr. McLeish: I am not the leader now.

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate that, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman has got around to reading the document from Labour-held Fife regional council, which said:
We welcome the opportunity to put forward a positive and well argued case for the continuation of local government services based on a single Fife authority.
That is what the Government have also concluded in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central also talked about costs and said that he did not believe the Government's figures.

Mr. McLeish: indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman confirms that that is his belief. I am sure that he must believe the figures of his own Labour-held regional authority.

Mr. George Robertson: Why?

Mr. Stewart: Because I can tell him what they are. The authority concludes—it has nothing to do with the Government as they are the authority's conclusions—that the savings over a 15-year period, discounted, would be no less than £42·4 million, and that is for only one proposal. I am happy to say that I see no reason to dissent broadly from the conclusions that Fife regional council reached on savings.

Dr. Reid: I know that the Minister is a fair man. On the ground of fairness, will he give us the estimate made by Strathclyde of the extra costs involved?

Mr. Stewart: I shall deal with the costs more generally later. I was referring to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and simply reminding him of the savings talked of by his Labour-held authority.
Opposition Members seemed to be in great difficulty in deciding what their policy was. The hon. Member for Hamilton spent a considerable time talking about Westminster, which is not exactly affected by the Bill. He believes in a Scottish Assembly, where he would be the Secretary of State for Scotland, where he would have no responsibility for Scottish local government but would have a residual responsibility, as a member of the Cabinet, for local government in England. Perhaps he is just practising hopefully for that day when he earns £70,000 a year, or whatever Cabinet Ministers earn, for having no responsibilities in Scotland whatsoever.
What is Labour party policy? I suggest that it appears to be this. For the sake of argument let us assume that Labour were in Government. First, there would be a constitutional Bill to set up a Scottish Parliament which would take two years. A local government commission would have to be set up and would produce its report after a certain period at work. The Scottish Assembly would then take some time


to look at the report's findings and draft legislation. That would be followed by a Bill, which would have to complete its passage, and the introduction of a new local government system.
I have worked out how long that would take, on the tightest reasonable time scale. It cannot be done before April 2004 because of the complexities involved in setting up a new Assembly—legislation, an independent commission and more legislation.

Mr. McLeish: No.

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it could be done faster, perhaps he could let me know. Labour party policy therefore means 10 years of uncertainty over the future of local government in Scotland.
Opposition Members have said that there is massive sustained opposition to those policies in Scotland. They have spoken about the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and its opposition. We were promised a mass lobby from COSLA on the date of the Second Reading. I have now discovered that COSLA sent a letter to all authorities saying that, unfortunately, it could not organise a mass lobby after all. That demonstrates a less than total commitment to sustained opposition to the Government's proposals.
Many hon. Members have referred to local government boundaries.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the proposals for Renfrewshire, why are the people of Inverclyde treated so differently from the people living in the proposed East Renfrewshire council area? What do the Government have against the idea of an Inverclyde council? Does it not make better sense to have three councils in Renfrewshire?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he implied, I think, in his comments that the representations that had been received from Inverclyde—I met an all-party delegation from the council, led by him—had not been considered. Let me make it clear, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have consistently said that detailed changes will be fully considered in the right and proper place—in Committee.

Mr. Kirkwood: I asked the Secretary of State a question earlier and I think that he slightly misunderstood me.
The boundary changes are crucial to hon. Members on both sidea of the House. Can the Minister confirm, first, that the Government are prepared to concede substantive changes on some of the boundary issues? Secondly, as I was trying to say to the Secretary of State earlier but did not get across properly, if individual Members table individual amendments applying to individual boundaries, that has a knock-on effect in other parts of the country. Therefore, if the Government wait until the whole of schedule 1 is debated to take it all away and think about it again before they bring back proposals for change, we need to know the ways in which the Government will deal with any substantive changes to the boundaries that they may have been prepared to concede in Committee.

Mr. Stewart: I also met a delegation from Berwickshire, led by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot forecast

today the outcome of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on the Bill. We will carefully consider substantive amendments that are put forward by the hon. Members who serve on the Committee. I cannot make a commitment, but it is worth recording that the proposals for the previous reorganisation of local government in Scotland were substantially changed as the Bill passed through its stages. We will therefore consider carefully the representations that are made by hon. Members.

Mr. Salmond: A few seconds ago, the Minister referred to the year 2000 when he was discussing the Labour party's proposals.

Sir David Steel: The year 2004.

Mr. Salmond: I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman must consider that to be a reasonable period for forecasting in terms of the Bill. Can he therefore, for the House tonight, rule out any move towards water privatisation in that time scale to the year 2004?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that the Government have no proposals for water privatisation in Scotland. He could not have been clearer.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have naturally raised a range of detailed points about the boundaries of individual authorities. My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) did not appear to hold a unanimous view on one aspect that they raised. I have no doubt that such points will be fully discussed in Committee.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) for recognising that, in relation to King's Park and Toryglen, the Government had responded to the representations made by him and by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) also referred to boundaries. He made the general point that it is impossible to have efficient small education authorities.
I can answer that point best by reading a quotation from the Committee debating the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in 1973:
Let me tell the Government that local interest in education is understandably intense, probably more intense
than in housing.
the education service should, in our view, be responsive to this interest. If, in order to get this responsiveness it was necessary to move housing from region to district, it is worth while taking education out of the hands of a very large authority and giving it to a smaller authority.
I shall repeat the last phrase for the benefit of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)—[Interruption.] I am grateful for hon. Members' appreciation. To repeat:
it is worth while taking education out of the hands of a very large authority and giving it to a smaller authority."—[0fficial Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 1 February 1973; c. 205.]
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth referred to my view, which is identical to that, as twaddle, or some similar word. I suggest that he have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). He expressed precisely those sentiments, which I have just quoted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside referred to costs and to staffing. He said that, on the


previous occasion on which local government was reorganised, there was widespread concern about increased salaries for senior staff in local government. I tell him—this relates directly to costs—that we are determined to prevent excessive salary increases and golden handshakes. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State, if necessary, to appoint a body to examine excessive salary increases and to recommend reductions.
The Bill also contains powers designed to discourage people from accepting redundancy when they know that they will be re-employed by a new council. In those circumstances, the council in question could be obliged to repay the compensation to the Secretary of State. Those proposals will be widely welcomed as giving my right hon. Friend the power, if necessary, to ensure that some of the excessive increases that occurred on the previous occasion are not repeated.
On costs, my hon. Friends have rightly pointed to the many individual district councils that have identified substantial savings from their unitary status. Other estimates within the world of local authorities, including Strathclyde, do not reflect those figures. I point out to the Opposition that, according to the whole range of estimates given by Labour-held authorities, large and small, the authorities say that under a unitary system they could provide services cost-effectively.
That is true even of authorities as small as Clackmannan, which is Labour held. A delegation from that authority, led by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), came to see me. The delegates argued that Clackmannan could provide all services, including the specialist services, cost-effectively. How was that council able to do that, the hon. Member for Fife, Central may ask. How could such a small council conceive of being able to supply the specialist services? Its members told me, "Minister, we would be an enabling council. Minister, we have no hang-ups about getting specialist services from other councils. Minister, we have no hang-ups about getting specialist services from the private sector."
That was the view of the Labour-held Clackmannan district council. That suggests that the thinking of many councils in Scotland is miles ahead of the thinking on the Opposition Front Bench. Many Labour authorities in Scotland have recognised that local government increasingly has an enabling role and that they may not only supply services by their own hand but use other means of delivering services. As I have referred to the hon. Member for Fife, Central, I shall give way.

Mr. McLeish: On an important issue concerning Falkirk and Clackmannan, will the Minister tell the House whether Kincardine will be moved, even if people there wish to stay in Fife, to complete the utterly ridiculous gerrymandering of two parts of one, so-called unitary authority?

Mr. Stewart: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to confirm that he supports Fife regional council's figures on the massive savings that will occur as a consequence of the implementation of the Government's proposals. I have no doubt that his detailed question will be raised during Committee, where it will be fully considered. Surely the hon. Gentleman did not expect me to say anything other than that.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister think that a small authority could have put together the financial package that brought Motorola to Bathgate? Would that have been possible without the Lothian region?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, absolutely. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that industry does not set up in areas with small authorities? That is nonsense. The lead organisation for encouraging inward investment in Scotland is Locate in Scotland and it will work in partnership with local authorities, which will have continuing industrial powers, as they have at present.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have only two minutes left and I must continue.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kincardine and Deeside and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) specifically mentioned community councils—an aspect of the Government's proposals which has not received widespread attention. I can confirm to my hon. Friends and to the House that community councils will have the right to be consulted on local planning issues on which we have indicated to the local authority that they wish to be consulted. They will also have the right to be consulted on the schemes which authorities draw up on decentralisation services. We regard those schemes as extremely important. Part of making local government more local is unquestionably local community councils having a right and proper role. The Bill will confirm that firmly.
I should like to make one point absolutely clear to the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)—[Interruption.]—who asked about the—

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. All night, the Government Benches have been empty because there has been hardly an English Member present. Now, they have all come in to vote the measure through against the wishes of the Scottish people and they are making so much noice that we cannot hear the end of the debate. Will you, Madam Speaker, ensure that those Conservative Members are quiet? They have not listened to the debate yet they are now going to vote for the measure against the wishes of the people.

Madam Speaker: Would the House come to order and hear the Minister's last few remarks?

Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members asked about representation on joint boards and the hon. Member for Midlothian asked about the police. All members of joint boards will be local authority representatives.
No coherent policy has been proposed by the Opposition in this important debate. By contrast, the Government have proposed clear, coherent proposals to make local government simpler, more accountable and more cost-effective and to make local authorities local and give them real authority in Scotland. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 277.

Division No. 68]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David






Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Faber, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fabricant, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Booth, Hartley
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorst, John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Elletson, Harold
Kilfedder, Sir James





King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, Sir David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sweeney, Walter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sykes, John


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moss, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trend, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wood, Timothy


Richards, Rod
Yeo, Tim


Riddick, Graham
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Adams, Mrs Irene
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainger, Nick
Eastham, Ken


Ainsworth, Robert(Cov'try NE)
Enright, Derek


Allen, Graham
Etherington, Bill


Alton, David
Evans, John(St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Ms Janet(Ros'dale)
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Faulds, Andrew


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Field, Frank(Birkenhead)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Austin-Walker, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Banks, Tony(Newham NW)
Foster, Don(Bath)


Barnes, Harry
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Battle, John
Fyfe, Maria


Bayley, Hugh
Galbraith, Sam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gapes, Mike


Bell, Stuart
Garrett, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gerrard, Neil


Benton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Berry, Dr. Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Betts, Clive
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blair, Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Blunkett, David
Graham, Thomas


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Gordon(Dunfermline E)
Gunnell, John


Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)
Hall, Mike


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Byers, Stephen
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Callaghan, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Menzies(Fife NE)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)
Hill, Keith(Streatham)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)


Carlile, Alexander(Montgomry)
Home Robertson, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clapham, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David(South Shields)
Howarth, George(Knowsley N)


Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)
Howells, Dr. Kim(Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom(Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy(Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Simon(Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank(Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin(Livingston)
Jackson, Glenda(H'stead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen(Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ieuan Wyn(Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Lynne(B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim(Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn(Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Bryan(Oldham C'tral)
Keen, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(Llanelli)
Kennedy, Charles(Ross, C&S)


Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)
Kennedy, Jane(Lpool Brdgn)


Davis, Terry(B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Khabra, Piara S.


Denham, John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil(Islwyn)


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lestor, Joan(Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert





Livingstone, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Radice, Giles


Llwyd, Elfyn
Randall, Stuart


Lynne, Ms Liz
Raynsford, Nick


McAllion, John
Redmond, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


Macdonald, Calum
Rendel, David


McFall, John
Richardson, Jo


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McLeish, Henry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Maclennan, Robert
Rogers, Allan


McMaster, Gordon
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


McWilliam, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Madden, Max
Rowlands, Ted


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Ruddock, Joan


Mahon, Alice
Salmond, Alex


Mandelson, Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Michael
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Miller, Andrew
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stevenson, George


Morgan, Rhodri
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wallace, James


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Hara, Edward
Wareing, Robert N


Olner, William
Watson, Mike


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Andrew


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wicks, Malcolm


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wright, Dr Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes: 


Prescott, John
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Primarolo, Dawn



Purchase, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing
Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills)),

That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. George Robertson.]

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 315.

Division No. 69]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Armstrong, Hilary


Ainger, Nick
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Austin-Walker, John


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry






Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Godsiff, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gordon, Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Berry, Dr. Roger
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blunkett, David
Grocott, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gunnell, John


Boyes, Roland
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hall, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hanson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoon, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cann, Jamie
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoyle, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Harry
Johnston, Sir Russell


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cox, Tom
Jowell, Tessa


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S.


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Enright, Derek
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mahon, Alice


Foulkes, George
Mandelson, Peter


Fraser, John
Marek, Dr John


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Galbraith, Sam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Garrett, John
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Rogers, Allan


Meacher, Michael
Rooney, Terry


Meale, Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Michael, Alun
Rowlands, Ted


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Ruddock, Joan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Salmond, Alex


Milburn, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Miller, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morgan, Rhodri
Skinner, Dennis


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Snape, Peter


Mudie, George
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spearing, Nigel


Murphy, Paul
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Edward
Stott, Roger


Olner, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis


Pickthall, Colin
Tyler, Paul


Pike, Peter L.
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pope, Greg
Wallace, James


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, John
Watson, Mike


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Randall, Stuart
Wilson, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Rendel, David
Wright, Dr Tony


Richardson, Jo



Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Roche, Mrs. Barbara





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bowden, Andrew


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Ashby, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Aspinwall, Jack
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkins, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Burns, Simon


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Butcher, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Butler, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bates, Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beresford, Sir Paul
Churchill, Mr


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clappison, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Coe, Sebastian


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Congdon, David






Conway, Derek
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Knapman, Roger


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lidington, David


Forth, Eric
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew


Fry, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Madel, Sir David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Milligan, Stephen


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ottaway, Richard





Page, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Paice, James
Stern, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Allan


Patten, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Sweeney, Walter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sykes, John


Pickles, Eric
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Richards, Rod
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Riddick, Graham
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Trotter, Neville


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walden, George


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Willetts, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Spink, Dr Robert
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sproat, Iain



Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Steen, Anthony

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That at this day's sitting the Motion relating to Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill [Ways and Means] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 208.

Division No. 70]
[10. 31 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Booth, Hartley


Atkins, Robert
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowis, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Baldry, Tony
Brandreth, Gyles


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, Mr
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gillan, Cheryl
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mates, Michael





Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Merchant, Piers
Soames, Nicholas


Milligan, Stephen
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mills, Iain
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spink, Dr Robert


Moate, Sir Roger
Spring, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Paice, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Thomason, Roy


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tracey, Richard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Richards, Rod
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Ruddock, Joan
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Michael Brown.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blunkett, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Burden, Richard


Austin-Walker, John
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Bell, Stuart
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)






Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hardy, Peter


Coffey, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Bob
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hood, Jimmy


Dalyell, Tam
Hoon, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Davidson, Ian
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Hoyle, Doug


Denham, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dixon, Don
Hutton, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Illsley, Eric


Dowd, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Eastham, Ken
Jamieson, David


Etherington, Bill
Janner, Greville


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Johnston, Sir Russell


Fatchett, Derek
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Fisher, Mark
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jowell, Tessa


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Foulkes, George
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Fyfe, Maria
Khabra, Piara S.


Galbraith, Sam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Kirkwood, Archy


George, Bruce
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Godsiff, Roger
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gordon, Mildred
McAllion, John


Graham, Thomas
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Gunnell, John
McKelvey, William


Hain, Peter
McLeish, Henry


Hall, Mike
Maclennan, Robert





McMaster, Gordon
Quin, Ms Joyce


McWilliam, John
Radice, Giles


Madden, Max
Reid, Dr John


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Rendel, David


Mahon, Alice
Richardson, Jo


Mandelson, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Rogers, Allan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Rooney, Terry


Martlew, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maxton, John
Salmond, Alex


Meacher, Michael
Sedgemore, Brian


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Milburn, Alan
Soley, Clive


Miller, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Morgan, Rhodri
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


Olner, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watson, Mike


Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L.
Wilson, Brian


Pope, Greg
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wray, Jimmy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Purchase, Ken

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions (other than any provision authorising payments out of the National Loans Fund) of the Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given by him for the discharge of any financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by any water and sewerage authority established by the Act; and
(c) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making loans to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Stewart.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Parliamentary longevity as a Member of the House does not, of itself, entitle me to suppose that I can offer better, more balanced judgments than parliamentary colleagues who have been here for less than thirty-one and a half years. On the contrary, on many matters the judgment of colleagues who were elected for the first time more recently may be more valid for the early 1990s.
However, parliamentary longevity entitles a man to do one thing, which is to warn and sound warnings. As one who went through it last time, I warn the House that the price of upheaval in local government is colossal and far greater than anyone suspects before the event.
Incidentally, money may not be the most important element in the price. Upheaval in local government anaesthetises action; initiative is stifled; decision makers are understandably less immersed in decisions of policy than concerned with their own future; and progress in helping the public is slowed down and often grinds to a halt.
My hon. Friends, many of whom have experience in local government, know what happened last time—many officials and councillors were simply distracted from the job of helping their constituents and ours.
Unpicking Lothian region would disadvantage my constituents and especially my most disadvantaged constituents, those who depend on the social services.
Unpicking Strathclyde—dare I say that it was a friendly neighbour?—would be a monumental task. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), who was the Strathclyde convenor for social work, knows better than any of us how difficult and costly such an intricate operation would be. We must therefore ask ourselves whether it is worth the candle. Often my hon. Friends would give a resounding no.
We are discussing the money resolution and I wish to go into some detail. I hope to be on the Committee and, if so, I shall certainly pursue the money aspect. At exactly 4.23 pm—we can check it in Hansard—I understood the Secretary of State to say that the net cost would be less than £50 million over three years. If I am wrong, the Minister

will interrupt me, but I think that I heard correctly. How can that be reconciled with Touche Ross's estimates and with the Bill?
Page ix of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, which deals with part V, states that the transitional costs of part I are estimated at £120 million to £196 million, offset by savings of £22 million to £62 million. Touche Ross estimated transitional costs and ongoing costs and savings for each of the four options. Its estimate was nearest the 24-unit costs and would mean transitional costs of £194 million on annual savings estimated at £120 million. Those figures are disputed by the regional councils, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The equivalent Strathclyde regional council figures for the 24-unit option were transitional costs of £439 million and ongoing costs of £14 million.
First, what is the difference between the Touche Ross estimate and the Government's estimate? Secondly, do the Government dispute the details that they have been given of the Strathclyde estimates?
I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to interrupt to clarify the position. I can see that notes are being passed. We are talking about the money resolution. Ministers introduced the Bill, so they should be able to give us the information off the top of their heads if they know what they are talking about.
Frankly, I do not think that the Government have begun to understand the matter and that is the trouble. Incidentally, before putting too much trust in Touche Ross I would go through the CIPFA criticism, which states:
This area is essentially complex and much 'guesswork' is required but having taken specialist advice on the question of early retirement and redundancy, Touche Ross concluded that the package offered to employees would be a 'redundancy' package and therefore no early retirements other than those related to the reductions in staff numbers would occur. Given that 26% of employees are aged 50 or over, this is an optimistic assumption and"—
this is emphasized—
seriously understates the potential costs associated with this item. Changes in status, remuneration, location and activity will affect an individual's choice and could lead to a significantly greater number of staff leaving the service than that assumed by Touche Ross.
Frankly, I must tell Ministers and their civil servants that I believe that local government treasurers know a great deal more about the subject than they do. I do not think that the Scottish Office is in command of the figures, which are guesswork. CIPFA and people such as John Lindsay—who have done the work—are far nearer the financial realities than the Scottish Office. I have been a Member of Parliament for thirty-one and a half years and I have absolutely no confidence in the financial management of the Scottish Office in this subject, although I have always been friendly to civil servants.
No Labour Member of Parliament in his right mind would suggest that there should never be a change in local government. In the early 1960s, my first Secretary of State Jack Maclay and his successor Michael Noble were driven to the conclusion that there had to be a fundamental reflection on local government structures. Tom Fraser, Peggy Herbison, Willie Ross and Jo Grimond shared that view. So did most local authority heavyweights of all parties, elected councillors and officials in the local government service.
The result was that most people looked forward to the all-party consensus-seeking group, which we know as the


Wheatley commission. It was agreed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), the late Betty Harvie Anderson and by Ames Imrie. It was a serious attempt to make some sort of constructive proposal.
This time round it is totally different. Can the Secretary of State tell us where the demand for change is coming from? We all heard him say that many people supported his point of view. I interrupted to ask whom he had in mind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Allan Stewart."] That is it: the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Other than the hon. Gentleman, with his mad local fixation, who wants it? That is what it is about and it is totally frivolous.
I repeat to the Secretary of State what I told him in his room, when he courteously invited anyone who had not been called to speak in the debate that took place in Edinburgh. He will recollect that my last words to him at that time were a request to go along the Corridor to the other place to seek out his noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy and ask him about his experience. Lord Campbell of Croy will tell anyone that he laments greatly that his whole time as Secretary of State was vitiated by the fact that the Government had got into the mire of local government reform. Everything else that he wanted to do was swamped.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State did as I advised him, but he would have been wise to do so. I warn him that for years to come any type of initiative in Scotland will be torpedoed by the fact that everyone is thinking about their positions in local government reform. It is only human.

Mr. William McKelvey: It is happening already.

Mr. Dalyell: The Chairman of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs says that it is happening now. I am afraid that it has started. The anaesthetic has started to work. That is a great pity. Not only is it a pity, but it seriously affects those whom we represent.
I have another question—not that I have had much success in getting any answers so far. I shall ask a specific question about the most costly item of all. If I briefly give some views, I had better say first whose views they are. They are the views of the Scottish School Board Association, the Scottish Parent Teacher Councils, the Forum on Scottish Education, the Catholic Education Commission, the Church of Scotland Education Committee, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland—Mr. Sandy Watson, its chairman, put the document together—the Educational Institute of Scotland, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the Professional Association of Teachers, which is not exactly a Labour organisation, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and UNISON Scotland. At the end I shall ask about the costings in relation to education:
Those organisations say:
The costs of change are unjustified at a time of government restrictions on local government funding generally, and when the education service is faced with substantial additional cost factors over the next few years.
The Minister for Education has been advocating 'consolidation, stability and partnership' for the Education Service, but the proposals on local government reorganisation threaten stability, introduce more change, and possibly remove the notion of meaningful partnership.

I confess straight away that I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) was instrumental in helping to set up the committee, but those are views far, far wide of those of my hon. Friend, who speaks on education on behalf of the Labour party. It represents every serious education organisation in Scotland and it goes on to say:
The implications for services have not been thought out properly. Education—a universal service with more than 50 per cent. of all local authority expenditure—is dismissed in two small paragraphs and fewer than 200 words in the White Paper.
There are dangers in concentrating only on detailed, practical implications—which are, of course, important—and losing sight of the current strategy for change in education and local government.
The document concludes:
There is strong concern about the nature of the decision-making process (which compares unfavourably with that of the Wheatley Commission and with the process adopted south of the border) and about the lack of proper consultation on issues which are of fundamental importance to the people of Scotland. The signatories to this document call for a Royal Commission on Scottish Education"—
and let us remember who the signatories are.
The implications for education have not been thought through and warrant more detailed consideration.
What thought has been given to the education costings? [HON. MEMBERS: "Absolutely none."] My hon. Friends on the Front Bench say "absolutely none". That is not only their view; it is the view of the bodies that I listed so carefully and slowly to the House. Surely there should be some answer to them?
Will a serious response be given at an early stage in the Committee to the directors of education or, better still, to the organisations themselves? If the Government were sure about the Bill, they would have given a serious response some time ago. If the Government were sure about the Bill, they would have given a proper answer to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. They would have given some answer to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives.
I am glad to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food here tonight. I know, from being a guest of the Norwich Labour party, that she was extremely highly thought of as a Norfolk county councillor. Why are not we in Scotland having at least the discussion and the care that is being taken over the reorganisation of local government in England? Why should we be different? The right hon. Lady knows very well from her experience as a Norfolk county councillor about the difficulties of local government reform.
I tell the English Members who will be members of the Committee that they should not regard the Scottish Standing Committee as a political penitentiary. I ask them to raise their heads from their constituency correspondence. If they listened, they might start to warn Ministers of the troubles that are likely to be caused by the Bill. Let us remember where the poll tax started.
I offer my committed support to my hon. Friends in their efforts to oppose the Bill in Committee.
I heard a lot this afternoon about the Wheatley Commission and about Lord Wheatley's views. On what would have been the late Lord Wheatley's 86th birthday, I wish that certain people would not attribute to him views that he certainly did not hold.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The House always listens with great respect to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Apart from the fact that he has been here for 31 years, we know that he always speaks with great sincerity and knowledge. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is here. The hon. Gentleman said that the extra cost caused by reorganisation would be £50 million over the next four years. That is a massive sum. It is almost as much as the EC spends every day on dumping and destroying food. To that extent, it is an enormous amount.
The House will also wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who appears to have had a Front-Bench position thrust on him. We wish him every possible success as a Whip, because he has waited for so long.
Having been a councillor many years ago in Glasgow, I am well aware that a single-tier local authority—only cities were single-tier authorities then—involves less spending. When two-tier administration was introduced in Scotland, there seemed to be ample evidence that there were increased costs, more bureaucracy, more officers and more confusion. To that extent, although I believe that we must listen carefully to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that, for Mr. Average, there are cost benefits and satisfaction benefits in having a single-tier local authority.
I hope that Scottish Office Ministers will listen carefully to this important point. Since going to Southend, East as a Member of Parliament, I have had lots of experience of making representations to Ministers and to Departments. I sometimes find that those representations are treated rather casually. Sometimes we feel that they are treated in an off-hand way, and sometimes we gain the impression that no one is listening.
I made representations on the Bill about expenditure on behalf of the residents of King's Park. We know that they are well looked after by the excellent hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I simply put forward the views of local residents in a brief letter. I wish to record that, in all fairness, not only did I receive a satisfactory reply, but two Ministers came to talk to me and not only showed courtesy, but wanted to know the arguments, the background and whether there was a good case. I was delighted to see in the revised Bill that, instead of King's Park being put into Lanarkshire, which the local people did not seem to want, it has been returned to Glasgow.
Having had limited experience of making representations on behalf of four or five old friends in King's Park, I genuinely found that the attention, courtesy and consideration given by the Scottish Office was an example of government. I feel that the Government would be on an even stronger basis than they are according to the opinion polls, if other Departments and Ministers showed the same consideration and expenditure as the Scottish Ministers.
It is not my habit to stand up and pay compliments, but I genuinely feel that, although I am sad that I am no longer a Scottish Member of Parliament, even though the proposals may be politically unacceptable to some people in Scotland and even though some of the policies may be criticised there, they have a most courteous and attentive Secretary of State and excellent junior Ministers.

Irrespective of what happens in politics, I hope that the excellent tradition of the Scottish Office will continue. I pay credit to it, and I wish that all Ministers in all Departments acted in the same way.

Mr. John Home Robertson: That was an interesting view of the Scottish Office, from Southend. I must tell the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that those of us who have to deal with the Scottish Office day in and day out and month in and month out on behalf of our constituents, see it in a different light. Knowing the genuine interest that the hon. Member has had in Scottish affairs in the past, I wonder whether the Secretary of State may like to consider offering the hon. Gentleman, as he has expressed interest in the money resolution, a place on the Committee.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): indicated assent.

Mr. Home Robertson: I see that the Secretary of State is indicating his willingness to do so. Since, unlike most of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary colleagues from Scotland, he has experience of serving on a local authority in Scotland, he may be able to bring some rather unusual wisdom to the Committee.
If the Bill goes through, it will cost not only the Treasury but many of our constituents very dear. I listened to most of the debate on Second Reading, and I must endorse the concerns expressed by a whole range of right hon. and hon. Members following the representations which we have all had from our constituents about what the reforms will cost them. There are not only the transitional costs and the upheaval to consider, but the extra costs that will arise from watering down the high-quality services that they enjoy at the moment.
I have received a large number of letters from the parents of disabled children who require specialist education that is now available to them under the auspices of the Lothian regional council. They are understandably concerned that they will have access to that kind of specialist education only if East Lothian goes to Edinburgh as a result of a sort of second-hand contractual arrangement between different local authorities.
Then there is the small matter of all the people who depend heavily on concessionary travel and the excellent service that makes it possible for my constituents in the Lammermuir hills and around the coast of East Lothian to travel throughout the region, to visit relations, to go shopping and to go to hospitals with the benefit of a proper, comprehensive, concessionary travel system. I fear that that system will not be available to them under the kind of fragmented local authority system that the Government are proposing.
I am interested to see the list of sponsoring Ministers on the face of the Bill. The Chief Secretary of the Treasury is one of the names printed. I saw that he paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber during the debate. It must be a "back to basics" Bill if he is supporting it. He is joined by the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for the Environment and, mysteriously, for Wales, and the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). There is no guilt by association for the other Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who has managed to be


missed off the list of guilty people sponsoring the Bill. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary realises what he is letting the Treasury in for by endorsing the Bill.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said. He referred to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and to the work undertaken by the director of finance of east Lothian district council, John Lindsay, who knows much about local government finance. On behalf of CIPFA, he and his colleagues have carefully considered the Bill.
It is very difficult to see how the Government and Touche Ross make the figures add up. They do not make sense. I shall give one or two examples that have been drawn to our attention, on which we have not received proper replies from Ministers.
What about the projected costs of planning and economic development? Touche Ross has calculated that savings ranging from £58·4 million at the 51 unit level to £75·1 million at the 15 unit level—so we can assume that it is thinking of savings of about £60 million—could be made from planning and economic development.
As the Scottish Office calculation of grant-aided expenditure for development in 1992–93 for regions and districts was £68·3 million net—the source for that figure is the Scottish Office publication on grant-aided expenditure for 1992–93—it will be interesting to know how savings of as much as £75 million will be made from a combined regional and district service that costs £68 million. Something does not add up, and it has not been explained. It is an example of how the Touche Ross analysis has been shown to be seriously flawed.
The big issue has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—transitional costs. Every time any Government service is reorganised, it costs more than anybody anticipated. Extra costs are always involved in changing staff, structures, corporate identities, maps and everything else. I see that the cost of winding up existing authorities has been estimated by Touche Ross to be £88 million over five years before inflation, whereas experience elsewhere shows that expenditure on this item could amount to 3·7 per cent. of current expenditure—£275 million. That is crucial to any sensible cost analysis of this upheaval. We have not had proper answers to those questions.
I am baffled how the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can associate his name with the Bill, because anybody in the Treasury must be able to take a pretty jaded look at the figures produced by Touche Ross, the figures being postulated by the Scottish Office and the wildly optimistic ideas proposed by the Under-Secretary to justify this dotty gerrymandering operation.
Of course the transition will be very costly, and in many cases it will give rise to more expensive, less efficient services. Nowhere could that be clearer than in the local authority that the Government propose to serve my constituents. They are proposing to split East Lothian in two and to float off one bit that happens to have a majority of Tory councillors and add it to part of the Borders region, Berwickshire, which has a few Tory councillors, in the hope that they will produce between them a Tory-controlled local authority. It is pretty blatant. There is no other reason for the proposal.
In order to carve out that bizarre boundary straddling the Lammermuir hills, with only one all-weather road linking the two parts of that proposed local authority, the Government suggest a local authority that will comprise a

population of 75,000 souls. That would be the smallest mainland local authority in Britain. It would be an all-purpose local authority, running the whole range of services, including social services and education. It would have a sparse population in a large area that is naturally divided by a range of hills. It would have a very small tax and population base. Of course the proposal will be expensive.
If the Government pursue that demented idea, my constituents will be saddled with an extremely expensive range of local authority services. They will be paying very high council tax bills, and they will probably receive poorer quality services.
The Treasury will have to pay more, and that means that the taxpayer will have to pay more, as a result of the costs of transition. There will also be a range of other costs. At the end of the day, our constituents will be paying higher local authority taxes for worse services. I do not know how the Government have the brass neck to introduce this kind of legislation to the House, but I suppose that nothing should surprise us nowadays.

Mr. John McAllion: I commend the considered, thoughtful and quite excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Conservative Members should take on board his point about the breadth of opposition in Scotland to the measure. The Bill is not simply opposed by political parties on the Opposition Benches. It is not just opposed by local authorities in Scotland. Opposition to the Bill is much wider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to Mr. Sandy Watson, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. I met Mr. Watson and Mr. Peter Bates, the chairman of the Association of Directors of Social Work. They made exactly the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow made earlier. They said that voluntary organisations, parents' bodies, the Churches and all those who benefit from local services in Scotland are 100 per cent. opposed to the Bill. They will not understand why Conservative Members chose to vote down an opportunity for them to have a say in the Committee stage of the Bill when they voted against committal to a Special Standing Committee.
Conservative Members must accept that, because they have a majority in the Chamber and can railroad through whatever legislation they choose, in the end that is bound to rebound against them if they continue to ignore the democratic opinion of those who send us to this House in the first place. That is particularly apposite in this debate.
We must remember that the party in government won only 25 per cent. of the vote in Scottish constituencies at the last general election. The results of an opinion poll will appear in the Scottish press tomorrow which will show that the current standing of the Conservative party in Scotland is just 15 per cent. Even those who supported the Government at the last election are turning away from them because of measures like this which the Government are railroading through the House.
By ignoring that public opinion, the Government simply undermine public confidence in institutions like Parliament. In the long run, they will undermine the longevity of this Parliament by taking such a cavalier attitude to those we represent.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the highlands, the previous Conservative party parliamentary candidate in my constituency leads the campaign against the Government's proposals in Caithness? Is he also aware that another former Conservative candidate, Mr. John Young, has also joined that campaign and rejects the Government's proposals most vociferously? Not only are non-party people opposed to the measure: Conservatives are also against it.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. The last education committee of Tayside council to consider the measure passed a resolution unanimously, with the support of Conservative councillors, which expressed concern about the implications of the measure and its impact on education, particularly on Catholic education.
If the Minister and his Back-Bench colleagues believe that they can continue to ignore the opinions of just about everybody in Scotland and do as they like to the Scottish people and even to their own supporters in the Conservative party, they are in for a very rude awakening when the measure eventually winds its way from the House and into the real world outside.
I should like to refer in some detail to some financial aspects of the Bill—in particular, staff who are likely to be rendered surplus to requirements as a result of the move to single-tier authorities. I am speaking about headquarters staff in regional councils—for example, staff in administration, finance, property and planning departments People who work in such departments in regional councils are likely to be declared surplus to requirements as a result of the Bill.
I will give way to the Minister on this point. If staff are rendered surplus, made redundant or given early retirement as a result of the Bill, will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply? If they take employment with authorities, will the same wages and conditions of employment apply in their new jobs? That is an important issue, and it is worrying people who work for local authorities, but we have had no guidance from the Government.
Equally, we must also consider severance payments to staff who are declared surplus. Upon privatisation, there were generous severance terms for people who worked for the gas industry, the Thames water authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board, the South of Scotland electricity board, and, in the Post Office, telecommunications. Will similar severance schemes be available to local authority staff who have to quit their jobs as a result of the Bill?
If the Minister thinks that he is likely to achieve savings to the public purse from the sale of regional council property which is no longer required by the succeeding authorities, he should consider the situation in Dundee at the moment, and Tayside house in particular. The freehold of that building belongs to Tayside regional council, but the condition of the building is such that it requires significant expenditure to bring it up to a proper standard. As the Minister knows, the market for office accommodation in Dundee is very slack indeed, and the likelihood that the local authority will be able to make any saving from the sale of Tayside house is virtually non-existent.
If the Minister has worked into his calculations that he is going to make savings from the sale of buildings such as

Tayside house, he had better think again. He will know from his friends elsewhere in the Government that Customs house in Dundee, which the Government spent more than £1 million to refurbish with a view to selling it, remains on the market. Nobody wants it. Given that track record, the property savings which the Government claim to arise from the Bill are almost certain not to occur.
The motion makes available to the Secretary of State money with which to finance borrowings by water and sewerage authorities. The point of the argument on Second Reading was that the Government would not privatise Scottish water companies. Of course, they had to say that, given the massive opposition to privatisation in Scotland: fewer than 1 per cent. of those who responded to the consultation process supported privatisation.
We now have three quangos set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In effect, they will offer the private sector contracts to design, build, operate and control services. The private sector will then be in complete control of water and sewerage operations in Scotland. It will set the prices, and it will make profits from water and sewerage services in Scotland. What we have is privatisation.
The very heart of the Bill is flawed; there is an inaccurate analysis. Perhaps there was a deliberate attempt by the Government to mislead their own supporters and Back-Bench Members, saying that they would not privatise water services when they were doing so but are keeping the fact behind a public sector smokescreen. That flaw runs through the whole Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friends have indicated that they would like to intervene in this short debate, so I shall leave it there.
The Government must take on board the fact that their majority in this House does not give them the democratic right to destroy local government in Scotland. If they proceed with the destruction of local government in Scotland, they will pay the ultimate political price for it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I shall try to answer as many points as I can in this short debate. Undoubtedly, hon. Members will raise these and similar points in Committee.
Ministers listen to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) with great care. We all appreciate his experience and knowledge in this specific area, and we look forward to his contributions in Committee. The concept of the Chief Secretary not knowing about the costs of the Bill must bring a slightly wry smile to one's face, because the Treasury takes a keen, and right and proper, interest in all areas of public expenditure. I can confirm that the Treasury has been rightly involved in all the calculations of costs.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: We are not saying that the Scottish Office has not told the Chief Secretary the cost of the reform; we are saying that the Government have not told the Chief Secretary the truth about the costs. Indeed, they have not taken on board the real costs of local government reform.

Mr. Stewart: The Government have fully taken on board the real costs of local government reform. Hon.


Members have referred to the Touche Ross report. Not only did we have that report: there were comments on that report, which we have taken fully into account in the figures that have been published. Figures for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 have been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They relate to the Touche Ross figures as amended in the light of consultation. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) suggesting that the Government should not have taken into account the comments that were made on the Touche Ross report? Of course we took them into account.
The estimates for a 15-year period are that the costs will be between £128 million and £196 million with annual savings estimated in the range of £22 million to £66 million. It is sensible to put forward a range, because much will depend on the decisions of individual authorities.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked me about the allowance for surplus buildings with regard to a specific building in Dundee. We have been extremely conservative—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 122

Division No. 71]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Clappison, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Congdon, David


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bates, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Cran, James


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Booth, Hartley
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butler, Peter
Evennett, David





Faber, David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Sir Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marland, Paul


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garnier, Edward
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Milligan, Stephen


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Needham, Richard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spink, Dr Robert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walden, George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Sykes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Trend, Michael



Trotter, Neville





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dewar, Donald


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Cryer, Bob
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Hoon, Geoffrey


Davidson, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)





Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Olner, William


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Illsley, Eric
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Steinberg, Gerry


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike


Martlew, Eric
Welsh, Andrew


Maxton, John
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Worthington, Tony


Michael, Alun
Wray, Jimmy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)



Milburn, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. John Spellar.


Moonie, Dr Lewis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions (other than any provision authorising payments out of the National Loans Fund) of the Act; and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;
(b) the charging on and issuing out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for fulfilling guarantees given by him for the discharge of any financial obligations in connection with sums borrowed by any water and sewerage authority established by the Act; and
(c) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making loans to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.

Orders of the Day — Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required for them for the exercise of their functions, nor otherwise payable by them under or by virtue of any provision of the Act;
(b) to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and
(c) to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Mr. John Maxton: I have not spoken in the debate so far, and certainly I shall not serve on the Standing Committee. That gives me the opportunity to say a few words about the parts of the Bill that deal with water and sewerage, to which the motion refers.
Paragraph (a) authorises the Secretary of State
to direct a water and sewerage authority"—
hon. Members should remember that there will be only three in the whole of Scotland—
established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct"—

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object to the hubbub being created by English Tory Members at the Bar of the House. Will you warn them that if they do not leave the Chamber they will be asked to serve on the Standing Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman is right: there is quite a noise going on, not only at the Bar of the House but in the rest of the Chamber. I hope that hon. Members will note what has been said.

Mr. Maxton: As I was saying, the Secretary of State is authorised to direct one of those three authorities
to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
The Bill will take all water and sewerage powers away from local authorities, many of which have had such powers for a very long time. Glasgow, for instance, has had the water supply to Loch Katrine for well over 100 years. Now the Government are removing all that from Strathclyde region and putting it into the hands of a quango whose members will, presumably, be placemen of the Secretary of State—his Tory friends. Presumably they will be paid substantial salaries. The Government are taking away from the local authorities many assets that are not necessarily directly related to the supply of water or the disposal of sewage.
Much of the land owned by local authorities that will be affected by the water provisions comprises some of the most beautiful countryside in Scotland—certainly in Strathclyde region. Loch Katrine, for example, is a very beautiful part of the country, as anyone who has sailed up it will confirm. I do not know whether the boat still travels up the loch, but it certainly used to.
According to clauses 93 to 95 of the Bill, the boards will have the right to sell off any land that they consider to be

surplus, or do not require for their functioning. If that is the case, the Secretary of State can instruct those boards to hand all the money over to him. He is then obliged to add it to the Consolidated Fund, which means that it becomes part of the general money that the Government spend on various items.
The people who will not receive any benefit from any sale are those who have paid their local rates and taxes over the years to purchase and develop the land for the water and sewerage services. If the boards sell off parts of the beautiful Scottish countryside to developers for tourist purposes—perhaps cheap, shoddy hotels will be shoved up, offering all sorts of leisure activities, which the local people do not particularly want—the local authorities will be unable to do anything about it. Even if they tried to refuse planning permission, the developers could appeal to the Secretary of State, who presumably would overrule those local authorities.
Some of the most beautiful countryside in Scotland will be under threat as a result of the Bill. The money gained from any sale of such countryside will not be—

Mr. Ernie Ross: Here comes an experienced salesman.

Mr. Maxton: Yes. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is an expert on selling things.
The land will be sold off, but the people to whom it rightfully belongs, the Scottish people, will not get any benefit, because the money will eventually be added to the Consolidated Fund. That money will then pay for the services of the constituents of those hon. Members who voted for a Bill that will gerrymander local government in Scotland. Because of the terms of the Ways and Means resolution, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to take money from the new boards, arising from the sale of land, and not to use it for the benefit of those who originally paid for that land.
The resolution also states that boards should pay the Secretary of State
sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
I presume that the "exercise of their functions" includes the salaries of board members. Can the Minister tell us what sort of salaries will be paid to the chairmen of the new boards? What will each board member receive?

Mr. William McKelvey: Perhaps £80,000.

Mr. Maxton: That is a large amount. Presumably the chairmanship of a board will be a part-time job. It will go to some business man or lawyer friend of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill should be known as the Stewart Memorial Bill, as it was designed to save his seat. He will appoint his friends as chairmen of the new boards and their salaries will have to come out of the money put aside for the "exercise of their functions". A local authority committee on water and sewerage would not pay itself the sort of salaries that the new boards will command.
What is most dangerous about the resolution is the way in which it gives the Secretary of State power to push public opinion towards accepting, or at least being prepared to consider the eventual privatisation of water. It gives him the power to take such sums "as he may direct". He may therefore say to the boards, "You are to pay me X amount." That will mean that the charges set by a board just to maintain its services to its customers and to pay off


its debt will be forced up. The Government are hoping that, as the boards have to undertake investment to bring water and sewage up to EC standards, and as the Government have the power to force charges up as high as they want, Scottish people will see their water charges rise and, with a little propaganda, will eventually say, "Well, we don't like it, but if water were in private hands it might be cheaper because the companies could sell things off and operate differently from the boards."
The most dangerous part of this Ways and Means resolution is the power that it gives the Secretary of State to take whatever money he wants from the new boards, forcing the boards to put up prices and, as a result, pushing people into accepting privatisation. I do not believe that the Scottish people will ever want water and sewerage to be privatised, as they made clear when the Government issued their consultation document on the matter. They made it so clear that the Government had to back down. Whatever some people may say, I believe that the Government were intent on privatising water and sewerage until they felt the weight of opinion not just of the Labour, Scottish National and Liberal Democrat parties but of their own supporters in Scotland. They then had to back down.
Instead, the Government decided on a halfway house. This Ways and Means resolution is part of that halfway house and I shall vote against it when the time comes tonight.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: This resolution is yet another increase in central Government powers and contradicts yet again the Government's claims that it is a decentralisation measure. Through the resolution, the Secretary of State is taking more control to himself.
The resolution authorises
the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct".
That is compulsion. The water board will have no control or say over its finances, which proves yet again that those quangos are simply the creatures of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The resolution also provides for the authorisation of
payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State … in consequence of any provision of the Act".
Once again, the Treasury grabs the cash and the only cash that it can grab comes from consumers of water services in Scotland. Everyone must use those monopoly services on a daily basis.
In future, the benefit of any payments for water services will be snaffled by the Treasury and surpluses from water services will benefit not the consumer but the Government. That is neither just nor sensible, but it is now being built into the Bill. It fits in well with the pattern which the Government have introduced into Scotland. For example, billions of pounds of North sea oil revenue have bypassed Scotland and gone straight to the Treasury, and Scotland has had little benefit.
It adds insult to injury if the Treasury now wants any surpluses produced by water services to bypass Scotland. They will be swallowed up by the Treasury instead of being ploughed back into improvements for consumers who created that money in the first place. Water and sewerage services are essential, monopoly services. People

have no option but to use water services and therefore no option but to contribute to any surpluses which the Treasury would take to itself.
England and Wales received billions of pounds in the form of a green dowry but, apparently, that will not happen in Scotland. The Government would rather use Scottish public money to further their ideological objectives than to clean up Scottish water. National Audit Office figures show that when the Government privatised water services south of the border all the national loans fund debt incurred by the water industry, which totalled about £5,028 million, was written off.
In addition, with great munificence, the Government authorised an additional cash injection in English and Welsh water of £1,499 million in December 1989. Overall, the green dowry that the Government quickly gave for the privatisation of water services in England and Wales amounted to some £6,527 million. I notice that the Secretary of State has been quick to avoid answering the question whether there will be any such debt write-off in Scotland.
In England and Wales, additional water privatisation costs of £131 million were incurred by the Department of the Environment. They included the costs of underwriting, customer share incentives and consultancy fees, and they were paid by the Government without a second thought. An additional £240 million was incurred in financing water privatisation, but it was excluded from the Department of the Environment's costs. It involved the flotation and privatisation costs of the Water Services Association and the water authorities, which came to £166 million, and—

Sir Anthony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it relevant to the ways and means resolution? He is talking about water privatisation in England. We are debating a narrow resolution. Surely the hon. Gentleman's speech should relate to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. If I thought that he was out of order, I would have ruled accordingly.

Mr. Welsh: I welcome the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who represents an English constituency. This is the first time he has shown his face in the Chamber throughout the debate. He has voted against Scottish wishes and interests without having heard the debate, which is ludicrous. His presence enables me to make a point: hon. Members who, like him, have not received one vote or any mandate in Scotland will serve on the Committee and force through a measure against the wishes of the Scottish people. I welcome the hon. Gentleman if he wants merely to listen to the debate.
The fact that the Government paid the sums that I have described as a green dowry in England and Wales but are not considering the debt burden on the Scottish water boards is relevant to the resolution. I remind the hon. Gentleman of more, although smaller, amounts: £166 million was paid to the Water Services Association; £10 million was spent on preparing legislation and establishing the new regulatory system in England and Wales; and restructuring costs amounted to £64 million.
About £7,000 million of public money was used by the Government to sweeten water privatisation in England, but


what is happening in Scotland? Silence. Are we to have a similar debt write-off? Will all, some or none of the debt in Scotland to be written off? I remind the Minister that £700 million of Scottish taxpayers' money was used by the Government to sweeten privatisation in England. Similar amounts should be made available to write off the water boards' debts in Scotland. It would make a difference by helping service provision and freeing cash to improve water quality, which is essential.
To judge from the silence of Ministers, however, it appears that there will be no green dowry for the Scottish water boards and no capital debt write-off. I would that it were otherwise, and I should be happy to let the Minister intervene to tell me that it is otherwise. I have put the same question to the Secretary of State time after time but I met only silence. The Government were happy to hand out public money for private purposes in England, but the Secretary of State will not say whether they will give a similar deal for the publicly controlled Scottish water boards. Is it Government policy to use public money for private profit and private purposes only in England and Wales?
Greater powers and more centralisation to the Secretary of State are contained in the resolution, as well as much unfairness to those who will have to contribute to any surplus that is produced by the water boards because water is a monopoly service. Any surplus made by the boards should be used for service improvement—for improving the infrastructure, for investment and for lowering prices to Scottish water consumers. That is what I want. What customers in Scotland pay in, because they have no option, should be returned to them in the form of services or improved infrastructure. I do not see that in the resolution. I see greater centralisation and the Government taking even greater powers, instead of a fairer deal for Scottish water consumers and water services.

Mr. Michael Connarty: First, I must admit to having a deep suspicion of the Government and would like to enquire of them the purpose of paragraph (b), which does not mention water and sewerage authorities but says "any sums" and
any provision of the Act".
To me, as I have a suspicious mind, that might read like a catch-all asset-stripping provision. The fact that it does not refer to water and sewerage means that any money realised from anything that is sold off can be put in to the Consolidated Fund and, in fact, returned to the Treasury.
If that is the case and paragraph (b) does not refer only to the water and sewerage authorities, as the Government see it—they do not believe in the sort of authorities that the Labour party and other parties would support, but in what they call minimalist authorities—there are so many assets to strip among everything that local authorities hold. Local authorities' buildings, which they have said will become surplus, could be sold off and the proceeds returned not to the local authority but to the Consolidated Fund, via this part of the resolution.
If the Government wish to put up for sale profit-making services, they could put that revenue into the Consolidated Fund. Even the houses held by housing authorities could be sold because the Government have a stated ambition to increase the number of private houses in Scotland. If

paragraph (b) does not refer only to water and sewerage, they could also force the sale of authorities' housing assets and give that money back to the Treasury.
Hon. Members may say that that is ridiculous and that the Government would not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will remember Hamilton college of education, which was sold cheap to form a private school. That is what the Conservatives want—they want the country to be run by the private sector, regardless of how much it costs the individual in additional charges. They are chasing an ideology that could lead to tremendous asset stripping.
We heard of the minimalist council of south Ayrshire and I know of the ambitions of the Conservative Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State, Department of Employment, for his authority. He wants a minimalist council that will sell off its assets. If they have only a few meetings a year to hand out contracts, they will not require buildings or be responsible for running any services and they can get rid of all the assets.
I warn the Government that, if that is the case, unless clause 23 merely pays lip service to devolution of power and to decentralisation of delivery of service, it will require a fantastic input of assets. I know that the clause is written in such a way that the Secretary of State can decide what is and what is not devolution. It may mean that there would be a token gesture. If paragraph (b) can be interpreted as an asset-stripping provision—I hope that it would not be—they will have nothing left to have their devolved services delivered from.
I should like the Minister to make it clear whether paragraph (b) refers only to water and sewerage authorities or whether it is a catch-all provision which would allow sums for any sale of any assets from any of the new local authorities to be returned to the Secretary of State and through him to the Consolidated Fund.
If it concerns only water and sewerage authorities, it is important to re-read the words of paragraph (a), which states that those authorities will pay the Secretary of State any
such sums as he may direct".
I ask hon. Members to think of a parallel to what may be happening with the water and sewerage authorities, which was so eruditely described by other hon. Members. For example, the Post Office is controlled by very much the same sort of provision. The Treasury can instruct that any sums can be returned to it, as it desires. Although the Post Office is a profit-making organisation—I think that it donated £60 million to the Treasury last year—it has been instructed under the new financial controls to return £160 million to the Treasury next year. The result was a penny on the postage stamp rate—to pay for a direction by the Treasury to return moneys to the Treasury.
This clause appears to be similar—a clause whereby the Government could instruct that the water charges would he increased, not for the purpose of investment in improved water, nor for the purpose of investment in water infrastructure, nor for the purpose of better sewerage, cleansing and dealing with effluent from industry or the domestic user, but merely to give money back to the Consolidated Fund to aid the Treasury's attempt to gather in moneys to keep the deficit down.
One might say that it might not make that much money, but £160 million is all that the Government are demanding from the Post Office. If they think that it is worth putting


a penny on the postage stamp to obtain money for the Treasury, it would not be beyond the bounds of imagination for the Government to force up water charges by simply telling the water boards that they want more money to be returned to the Consolidated Fund and to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State said earlier that if people faced the prospect of doubled charges for their water to pay for investment in the infrastructure required in Scotland they would not be so happy with water charges. That is not the case. If people knew that the doubled charges would go to the democratically controlled local authority to improve water and sewerage services, they would be happy to pay a doubled charge.
Under the Bill, however, they could be forced to pay doubled charges merely for the purpose of returning money to the Scottish Office—money which would then, presumably, go into the Consolidated Fund or be taken as part of the income to the Scottish Office so that the direct grant from the Treasury for Scottish services would be reduced. The clause is laden with dangers for water consumers, because it can mean a burden of increased cost that is not reflected in the improvements that we know to be necessary in the water and sewerage infrastructure of Scotland.
I wish the Secretary of State to give us some assurances that he will not use the clause for that purpose. His silence will be taken as an admission that he is already thinking along those lines—that it will be a money cow which can be milked because when he has the boards they can be made to pay him sums of money and the cost will then be passed on the consumers with no real benefit to them. We need an explanation of what seems to be a tiny piece of the legislation but is laden with dangers for the consumer and for democracy in Scotland.

Mr. John Home Robertson: There is always a bit of mystery surrounding Ways and Means resolutions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has extended the mystery surrounding this one by giving us his interpretation of paragraph (b), which takes us beyond the duty being imposed concerning the application of funds from water and sewerage authorities. He has read that paragraph by itself and he may be right to do so. He may well be right in suggesting that it creates scope for the application of funds from a range of different functions and services provided by local authorities and gives the Secretary of State even more power to direct local authorities to dispose of assets or to make profits and to syphon off money by those means into the Treasury.
It appears that the main purpose of the resolution is to make provision for the Secretary of State to direct the new water and sewerage authorities to pay to him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said earlier, the new water and sewerage authorities will be straightforward creatures of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Clause 64 tells us that the water and sewerage authorities will be

composed of between seven and 11 persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of that authority.
One might like to think that that would mean that a load of plumbers would be nominated by the Secretary of State to be members of the water and sewerage authority. However, let us consider one example of a body appointed by the secretary of State for Scotland, which is chaired by someone whom the Government regard as having the requisite knowledge and experience to discharge that function. The Historic Buildings Council for Scotland is chaired by no less a person than the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is well known for his interest in water and things liquid in Scotland.
I fear that such authorities will not be accountable to people in Scotland; they will not be primarily interested in providing a quality service to people in Scotland. They will be there, like every other quango nominated by the Scottish Office nowadays, to exercise the political will of the Scottish Office.
That development raises one or two alarming prospects. Under the resolution, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct the bodies that he has nominated to apply their moneys in certain ways. That could, as already suggested, be a softening-up exercise leading in the direction of the privatisation of water and sewerage services.
In that case, if would be perfectly consistent with that ethos for the Secretary of State to direct the nominated bodies to start making a profit, rather than just breaking even, providing a service and balancing the books, and in doing so, providing a quality service to water consumers all over Scotland. He could direct them to start making a profit so that he could take the money out of their trading account and apply it back to the Treasury—another form of indirect taxation on people in Scotland. The Secretary of State should come clean about that and tell us whether that is what he had in mind when he tabled the resolution.

Mr. Adam Ingram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether this is a matter for you. I have been carefully studying the monitors which some of us, even with our failing eyesight, can read in the Chamber. I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was speaking, his name was written in large letters. I have been watching carefully for the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I cannot read it. It is impossible to read because it is in very small letters. Fortunately, I am in the Chamber so I know who is speaking, but those who may not be able to read the monitors outside because of the small letters may not know that my hon. Friend is speaking. Does the matter fall within your remit, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Committee.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend's point of order—

Mr. McAllion: That is why the Chamber is so empty.

Mr. Home Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, that may be why the Chamber is so empty; people do not know that I am speaking. I am tempted to give my hon. Friend the


Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) a long and boring explanation of my long and boring name. The length of my name is the reason why it appears in such small print on the monitors. I must not be diverted from the narrow terms of the resolution.
I have expressed my concern that the Secretary of State may take advantage of the terms of the resolution to direct water and sewerage authorities to seek to make a profit so that he can use them as a vehicle for taxation. I am all the more worried when I look at clause 100, which provides for water metering. Water metering has been experienced in the Isle of Wight and in parts of England. Many water consumers have found themselves in terrible difficulties because of spiralling charges for water and sewerage. it may not be just a break-even exercise. First, the Secretary of State may direct the authorities to make a profit so that they can pay money into the Treasury, which is a matter of great concern.
The second point that worries me, almost as much as the first, is that, as well as trading profits, the water and sewerage authorities will have capital assets in abundance in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said, assets build up over many years as a result of the enterprise, public concern and investment of local authorities. My hon. Friend referred to Loch Katrine. One could list a whole range of lochs and reservoirs and the land surrounding them all over Scotland.
We must consider not only the land surrounding those lochs and reservoirs, but the sporting and recreational rights that go with them. In my constituency, Lothian regional council water and drainage department has a number of reservoirs and lochs for which there are quite good fishing rights and on which people enjoy sailing. It is straightforward for any citizen to pay a reasonable charge for a day's fishing on those reservoirs or to go sailing on them, which makes all kinds of sense as part of the public service and the public assets to which the public have access.
I fear that Ministers may say, "Ah, those lochs and reservoirs have a capital value. We could direct our new nominees on the quangos"—in this case the new East of Scotland water authorities—"to sell off the public assets and to reduce public access to fishing on those lochs and reservoirs." Already, I have had experience of what happens when certain types of developers and private operators become involved in land holdings in different parts of my constituency.
Traditionally, on the boundary of my constituency, people have walked up to the highest point in the Lammermuir hills on open moorland, not bothering anybody. A couple of years ago, somebody from Hampshire I think bought the estate and has instructed the estate staff to begin turning people off the land. I fear that that will also happen on and around the lochs and reservoirs which are currently operated by our local authorities, where people have access to fish, sail or do anything that they want in and around those beautiful areas in the hills and uplands of Scotland.
We can see the fences going up, the gates being closed with signs saying, "keep out, private property", the higher charges for access and sporting rights in those areas and people being denied the right of access to the hills and uplands of Scotland. That would be a scandal, but it would be possible under the terms of the Ways and Means resolution. Clause 95 makes it clear enough:

a new water and sewerage authority may dispose of land held by them in any manner, to whomoever and for whatever purpose they wish.
Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a new water and sewerage authority shall not dispose of land under subsection (1) above for a consideration of less than the best that could reasonably be expected to be obtained on the open market.
The Secretary of State will direct the authority to go for as much as it can whenever it sells assets. It is all about privatisation and benefits to the highest bidder.

Mr. Maxton: If the local authority wished to purchase some land to put it into a country park or for the enjoyment of the people who live in that area, it would have great difficulty in finding the price to pay for land. However, if a private builder wished to build bungalows on the site of Loch Katrine, presumably because he would be able to pay the market price, he would be able to do it.

Mr. Home Robertson: That would be the ultimate irony—public assets in the hills created as a direct result of the foresight, planning and investment of local authorities and their ratepayers, poll tax payers and council tax payers over the years, being taken out of the local authority sector and handed to central Government quangos as laid out in the Bill and then sold to the highest bidder.
Local authorities may well find themselves trying to buy back their own property to protect the rights of their citizens to have access to the hills and to go fishing on their lochs and reservoirs.
This is far from a technical resolution. What is being provided for is part and parcel of the thrust of the legislation, and it stinks to high heaven. That is why it is right for us to debate it and to vote against it.

Mr. John McAllion: This must be an important debate. At 12.20 am, it has attracted more Conservative Members representing English constituencies than any other stage of the Bill. I am delighted to see them in the Chamber and I look forward to the informed contributions that they are likely to make to a debate which I hope will be prolonged because we are dealing with issues that are central to the people of Scotland. I should not want Parliament to skate over the motion without giving it due consideration.
As a number of Members are present from English constituencies who do not have wide experience of Scottish local government issues, especially of the way in which water and sewerage services are delivered in Scotland, it may be as well to help them by explaining the process to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) does not have much knowledge of these matters either, so for his benefit and that of Tory Members perhaps I should explain that water and sewerage services are delivered by elected local authorities and that the Scottish people want them to continue to be so.
When the Government put out for consultation the proposal that they should take water and sewerage services from local authorities and give them to quangos, area water boards or privatise them, they received a massive response. I understand that no fewer than 4,733 submissions were received from individuals and organisations in Scotland.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: My hon. Friend is offering an excellent explanation to English Members. He said that the Scottish people want water to continue to be provided by local water authorities, but it is not good


enough to say that the Scottish people want it. He should explain what percentage of the Scottish people want it, because opinion polls showed that more than 90 per cent. of Scottish people opposed the Government's proposals.

Mr. McAllion: I was about to point out to Conservative Members the seriousness of supporting a proposal that is overwhelmingly opposed by the people of Scotland, including Conservative supporters who have no time whatsoever for the changes that are being pushed through the House.
Of those 4,733 submissions, 4,057 came from private individuals and only 676 from organisations. Of all those responses, only five supported the change from local authorities to privatised water boards, of which four were from companies interested in taking over water and sewerage services in Scotland. Another submission came from the economic affairs committee of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association. That can hardly be said to have democratic support in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is right. The most recent opinion poll showed that 95 per cent. of the Scottish people oppose the Bill's proposals for water and sewerage services. Indeed, so unpopular is the Bill making the Conservative party in Scotland that it is beginning to become less popular among Scottish people than Michael and Kevin Kelly are among Celtic supporters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray a little wide. He must stick to the subject that is before us.

Mr. McAllion: Michael and Kevin Kelly can be blamed for many things, but not for the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Scotland.
Under paragraph (a) of the Ways and Means motion, the Secretary of State will be given the power
to direct a water and sewerage authority…to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
I should be interested to hear from the Minister what sums will accrue to the new water and sewerage authorities which they do not require for the exercise of their functions.
The new water authorities are to be area water boards and public boards appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It will be their function to deliver water and sewerage services. However, they will not carry out those functions themselves. In the main, they will appoint private sector agents to deliver the services. Those agents will design, build and operate the water treatment plants that are necessary to provide those services.
As I understand it, there will be a contract between the area water board and the private sector agent which will pay the private sector agents for carrying out the work on behalf of the area board. The cost of that contract will be met by the levy of a water rate that will be paid by the consumers of water and sewerage services in Scotland.
The consumers—the Scottish people—will be asked to pay for a service delivered to them by private sector organisations over which they have absolutely no democratic control. They will not control the appointment of the private sector bodies that will deliver the services.

Similarly, they will not control the appointments to the water boards that will appoint the private sector companies to deliver the services.
It is clear that paragraph (a) is deeply undemocratic in the way in which it delivers water and sewerage services in Scotland. Those who vote for the motion had better keep that in mind.
The water rate that will be levied to pay for the contracts and to pay for the services will not be collected by the private sector agents. It will not even be collected by the area water boards. The rate will be collected by the new single-tier councils. I assume that the area boards will authorise the councils to collect only as much money as is required to pay for the contracts that have been agreed with the private sector agents.
I do not assume that the area boards will be allowed to instruct the single-tier councils to collect more than is required to pay for the water and sewerage services. If they could be instructed to collect more, the area boards could create a surplus for themselves by charging people too much for those services. That would be a form of taxation.
If the Secretary of State is saying that, if he came across an area board collecting more than the sum required to pay for the services being delivered, he would instruct the area board to return that surplus to the consumers who had paid for the services, that would be one thing, but that is not what the Secretary of State is saying in paragraph (a). He is saying that, if he comes across an area board that is charging too much for the services that it is delivering, he will simply require that board to return the surplus money to him. As I understand it, that money will go into the Consolidated Fund.
In other words, according to the motion, the Secretary of State has the opportunity to impose a further form of taxation on the Scottish people by allowing his appointees on area boards to charge more than they need for the services and to hand the surplus to the Secretary of State for his own purposes.
The other possibility is that the contracts agreed between the area boards and their private sector agents might be too generous. That might allow the private sector agents to make too generous profits from the operation of the contract by charging too much for the services provided. If the Secretary of State came across private sector agents making too much profit from the contracts agreed with the area boards, I would expect him in all decency and morality to instruct the area boards and private sector agents to return the surplus to the people who are paying the water rate. Of course, that is not what he says. He says that he wants any surplus for himself. He wants it to go back into the Consolidated Fund—yet another form of taxation.
More likely, the Secretary of State will ignore the fact that private sector companies and area boards are ripping off water consumers in Scotland and will let them get on with it. The only people who support the Tory party in Scotland are the type of people who would rip off the Scottish people and charge them too much for services.
Another problem arises. Ever since the poll tax was introduced in Scotland, a tradition of non-payment has arisen. Even the council tax, which has met much less resistance in Scotland than the poll tax did, still suffers from the problem that people are getting out of the habit of paying their bills. There is resistance to paying bills.
What will happen when an area board employs a private sector deliverer to provide water services in its area, when


there is a levy to pay for that service, when the single-tier local council is collecting that water rate, when there is non-payment and a consequent shortfall in the money going to that responsible area board and it does not receive the money to pay to the private sector agent to deliver services? Is that why we have paragraph (b)? It states:
to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and
Is the purpose of the Consolidated Fund to make up the shortfall to the area boards so that they can pay the private sector agents, as agreed in their contracts? If that is the case, it is a convoluted and unnecessary way of organising the delivery of water and sewerage services in Scotland. Surely it would be much easier to let local authorities carry on delivering those services in the efficient and economical way that they have done throughout the existence of regional councils since 1975.
Nobody has complained that water and sewerage services were not good enough, that they were not being delivered properly, or that they cost too much—quite the opposite. People in Scotland understand that water and sewerage costs in our country are far cheaper than they are in England and Wales because they have not been privatised. If they were privatised, the immediate effect would be to push up the cost of water and sewerage services.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am following my hon. Friend's argument very carefully, but I am rather worried. He has said that some people have difficulty paying their bills. He says that the motion could bring about a situation in which we could have artificially high charges for water. Does my hon. Friend foresee the possibility that the government might introduce consequential legislation which would provide for the cutting of domestic water supplies in Scotland, which would be a horrifying prospect?

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend raises an important issue which, at least to my knowledge, has not been touched upon this evening. There have been repeated statements by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he does not intend to change the law in Scotland on the illegality of disconnecting domestic users from water and sewerage supplies. I am sure that he does not propose to do that.
However, if the situation that I am describing arises in Scotland and if the cost of water and sewerage services is so high that some consumers cannot afford to pay and, as a result, do not pay, and the single-tier authority collecting the rates cannot collect the rates from those individuals and a shortfall then accrues to the water board and it cannot pay for the contract that it has taken out with the private sector, someone has to pay. Either the general taxpayer will pay out of the Consolidated Fund, as outlined in the motion, or the Secretary of State will change the law in Scotland and allow the disconnection of domestic consumers from the water and sewerage supply, as is allowed in England and Wales.
The Government continually tell us that this is a unitary Parliament which presides over a unitary state and that what happens in one part of the country happens in any other part of the country. They do not like to carry that argument too far when it comes to water disconnections because it is too embarrassing for them. However, it will

come to that if they are faced with a level of resistance which damages the ability of water boards and private sector agents to deliver the sewerage service.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I offer the hon. Gentleman a third option and that is to do what is becoming increasingly prevalent in England and Wales—self-disconnection through the introduction of water metering. That seems to be the road down which the Government are moving. In England and Wales, the Government are allowing people to disconnect their own water and sewerage service. That is why it is important to strengthen the provisions in the Bill so that self-disconnection will not be allowed in Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) pursues that point, I must point out that the terms of the Ways and Means motion are fairly narrow. Although passing reference may be made to other matters, this must not develop into a full-blown debate about disconnections.

Mr. McAllion: That is a fair point to make, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about the reference to the Consolidated Fund in paragraph (b) and asking the Minister to clarify whether any shortfalls that may accrue from non-payment will be met by the Consolidated Fund or, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has suggested, by the introduction of metering. Effectively, that would be the introduction of self-disconnections for Scottish domestic consumers.
Perhaps that is not a matter of grave concern to Tory Members because their constituents are already subjected to such deprivations, but it is a matter of concern for Labour Members because our constituents are protected by Scottish law at present. We want to ensure that that position remains and no move is made by the Government to change the law in that respect.

Mr. Maxton: I come back to the phrase "exercise of their functions" in paragraph (a), to which my hon. Friend referred. I wonder whether that covers the cost to local authorities of collecting water charges. Presumably the collector of the money will have to carry out any disconnections, not the water authority. Labour-controlled local authorities could be forced to disconnect people from their water supply, although they have no control over that supply at all.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As I understand the motion and the substance of the Bill, collection of water rates will not be one of the functions of the water and sewerage authorities. That function is being allocated to the new single-tier councils, which will have nothing whatever to do with the provision of water and sewerage services.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there may well be a level of resistance to paying water rates to the new area boards. But that will not be a problem for area boards because the responsibility for collecting water rates will lie with local authorities. Local authorities will get the blame if they have to pursue non-payers through diligence and through the courts, the sheriff, warrants and so on.
One of the Government's great arguments about the measures contained in the Bill is that they make things clearer and more accountable. We cannot imagine another situation in which it is not clear where accountability lies other than the one referred to by my hon. Friend.
My final point relates to paragraph (c):
to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority".
I should like the Minister to explain what those loans are likely to be. We know that, once the water companies in England and Wales were privatised, they quickly moved away from solely providing water and sewerage services and diversified into other areas of economic activity. They became involved in waste companies and leisure activities.
As my hon. Friends have said, there is a great danger that the land, rivers and lakes associated with water and sewerage authorities will be quickly divested by the new water boards and sold to private sector companies, which can then exploit them for profit by putting up fences and gates, denying access to the public, and increasing charges for fishing, walking and sailing on the lochs. That is a serious issue which the Minister must explain to the House before the resolution is passed.
The measure has met almost complete opposition from the people of Scotland. It will have a deleterious effect on the way in which people pay for their water and sewerage services. Indeed, costs will spiral upwards until they match those in England and Wales. Disconnections will occur and metering will be imposed on people against their will.

Mr. George Foulkes: My hon. Friend has not mentioned the cost of collection. At the moment, collection is carried out by regional councils, whereas presumably under the new arrangements there will have to be a separate department to deal with the collection of those water and sewerage charges. That will mean that a separate finance department and separate arrangements wil be needed for collection and billing. Does my hon. Friend agree that that will mean a substantial increase in administrative costs?

Mr. McAllion: Very much so. We are not simply dealing with the taking away of water and sewerage services from regional councils where regional councils are left in place. Those regional councils have finance departments and have the means of collecting council tax at the moment. Another part of the Bill relates to the abolition of regional councils and the break-up of finance departments and of the systems for collecting taxes and water rates. Those systems will not be in place in 1995 or in 1996.
The water rates will have to be collected by the new local authorities, many of which may not be in a position even to collect their own council taxes. Those authorities will then be expected to collect water rates on behalf of the area water boards as well. I had a meeting this morning with some officials of Tayside regional council. They said that they cannot see for a number of years any system coming into operation which effectively would collect the council taxes or water rates that are due as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill.
The Government are inflicting upon the Scottish people an exercise in political gerrymandering. The proposals will also bring absolute chaos to the provision of local government services and to the collection of the costs of those services. The Government had better understand that, before they progress with the Bill. Irrespective of the political implications of the Bill, the sheer practical chaos

which will be caused by the attempt to make the Bill work will make the poll tax look simple indeed. The lesson has not been learnt.
The Government got themselves badly burned over the poll tax and I thought that, having done that, they would never return to any madcap scheme such as is tied up in the Bill. There are few Tories left representing Scottish seats in the House. I predict that, once the measure begins to bite in Scotland, there will be even fewer in the future.

Mrs. Irene Adams: We are not seeing tonight the Government's concern to provide water services in Scotland. Instead, this is a fit of pique by the Government because of the response to the proposal to privatise water in Scotland. The Minister himself received an horrific reply from his constituents, with some 15,000 of them saying that they wanted nothing to do with water privatisation. Ninety-five per cent. of the people of Scotland have said that they want nothing to do with it.
The Government now, in a fit of pique, have decided that they will have privatisation by one means or another. The phrase in the resolution which concerns me is
pay him such sums as he may direct".
That one phrase covers all tonight's debates on the matter. The boards which the Secretary of State will appoint, or the lackeys whom he will appoint to the boards, will then be directed to
pay him such sums as he may direct".
When will the Secretary of State decide what those sums are to be? Will the decision be taken first, or will he see what the board has left at the end of the financial year and then take that sum? What will come first—the chicken or the egg? Will he tell the boards what amount they must have left over? Will the boards then have to decide how they are to raise that sum and how will they come to that decision?
Will the boards be asked to sell off the very asset that the people in Scotland have warned them not to sell off—the water itself? Will we see the sale of Loch Katrine? Will the boards then be instructed to rent it back to supply water to the people who have paid for it in the first place? Who will make that decision?
The Tories have never provided water out of the goodness of their hearts. One of the first water companies in my consitituency was set up to provide water not for the common people but for bleaching the cloth in Paisley, a textile town. While the company was providing water for bleaching the cloth, people were dying in typhus epidemics because of the dirty water supply. That is a position to which we could well return under the provision that the water boards must pay the Secretary of State such sums as he may direct. Where will that stop? What will be the ceiling of the sum that he may direct and how will it be collected?

Mr. Foulkes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Government are doing the same thing to the Post Office? It is required to pay such sums to the Secretary of State as he may direct. That is crippling the service and making it more difficult for the Post Office to improve its services. It is perhaps paving the way for the privatisation of the Post Office. In the same way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you have rightly said, this is a narrow motion. Has not the hon. Gentleman deviated into an irrelevant matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that I can manage without the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was about to come to a conclusion. I was about to say that the Government were paving the way for privatisation of the Post Office. That may well be what they have in mind for water and sewerage in Scotland.

Mrs. Adams: If the Bill does not open the door to privatisation, it is certainly providing the key to that door. It is providing a means whereby the boards will have to raise such moneys. The boards appointed by the Secretary of State will have no choice but to sell off their assets and will force prices up so much that they will price themselves right out of the business of providing water. All that they will then do is set themselves up as an intermediate body which buys back the water that they have sold off and then provides it to the people who have paid for it in the first place.
We see yet another hidden tax in the Bill—yet another means of the Secretary of State raising funds by the back door. Those funds will go back into the Consolidated Fund so that once more he does not have to give money from that fund to provide services in Scotland. It is a double measure. First, it gives him the key to the back door to water privatisation, which was so overwhelmingly rejected by people in Scotland. Secondly, it allows him to raise yet further funds to go back into his own coffers.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When my hon. Friend looks at paragraph (c) of the Ways and Means motion, does she find it remarkable that there should be provision in Scotland to repay over a period certain loans, at the whim of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when, at the time of the privatisation of the water industry in England, the majority of the water authorities' outstanding loans were wiped out?

Mrs. Adams: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The loans were wiped out in the main when the water industry was privatised in England. But no provision is made to wipe out loans when the water is provided by boards in Scotland. I presume that we shall see such a provision when we get the back-door water privatisation.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Bill is a fit of pique. The Secretary of State has determined that he will privatise water in Scotland by one means or another. As he cannot do it directly because of the reaction in Scotland when privatisation was first proposed, he now intends to do it indirectly. He will put such a price on water that the boards will price themselves out and will be forced to sell all their assets. The people to whom they sell the assets will set the price at which the water is sold back.

Mr. Connarty: The Secretary of State said earlier that people would not take kindly to having their water charges doubled if that was to pay for the increase in water and sewerage quality that is required in Scotland. Paragraph (c) requires a responsibility for the repayment of loans; paragraph (a) provides for a completely new charge of any sum that the Secretary of State wishes to charge. It is as if local authorities had taken a power not just to borrow the

money to pay for improvements, but to start giving profits to pay for other services. This is an additional water charge for local authorities.

Mrs. Adams: I entirely agree.
The Government refused to accept that people in Scotland did not want to be privatised. They have tried by every means possible to make that come about. I think that they will receive the same response as last time: people will not be fooled. People in Scotland are very concerned about the lack of democracy that we are seeing again here. Not only is the Secretary of State appointing yet another quango; he is deciding that he will milk this quango dry—that he will set the charges. We have no means of knowing what he means by "to pay him such sums"; what sums are we talking about? Will he set them at the beginning of the financial year, or will he wait until the end and see what sums the board has? If the Secretary of State sets the goal first, the price of water services in Scotland may well double.
People in Scotland might not object to that if they received those services—if they were assured of a clean water supply and the renewal of sewerage systems that are currently failing desperately. They would not mind if they knew that all the money was being ploughed back into such services. But, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, metering may result in self-rationing: people will simply turn off their water supplies, because they will know that at the end of the week they will not be able to afford the bill. Where will that stop? Where will the price increases stop, as a means of bringing money back into the coffers—such sums as the Secretary of State may determine?
The Secretary of State must tell us exactly how he will go about this and when he will determine what sums will be involved. Will this happen at the beginning of the boards' financial year? Will the boards be expected to sell off assets to pay
such sums as he may direct"?
Does that simply mean assets such as the land around the water, or does it mean the lochs themselves? Before the Secretary of State goes any further, he must answer all those questions.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: According to the well-known saying, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it". Where is the demand for this measure? The truth is that people in Scotland are delighted with water and sewerage services.
I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is present. I listened with interest to his remarks on the money resolution, when he paid tribute to the excellent way in which he had been treated by some of his Scottish Front-Bench colleagues.
According to an opinion poll in tomorrow's Glasgow Herald, 15 per cent. of the Scottish people now support the Conservative party. That figure is higher than it should be. The hon. Member for Southend, East may have felt nostalgic about his time as a Conservative Member for Scotland, but I am sure that he cannot remember any other time when Conservative support was as low as 15 per cent. People must ask why.

Mr. McAllion: Was my hon. Friend present when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that he was extremely sad that he no longer represented a


Scottish constituency? My hon. Friend should tell him that the people of Cathcart are not at all sad that he is not their Member.

Mr. Hood: I was present, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East had his tongue in his cheek when he said that. These days, there is not much future in being a Conservative in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, before the hon. Member for Southend, East became the Member for Cathcart, he was a member of the old Glasgow corporation. One of the great prides of that corporation was its water supply and waterworks, including Loch Katrine. When the hon. Gentleman was a councillor, I am sure that he took pleasure in sailing across Loch Katrine, because councillors had the right to do so. That privilege will no longer be available to the elected members who represent the new future Glasgow authority.

Mr. Hood: If the hon. Member for Southend, East lived in Glasgow, I doubt that he would support the motion. I am sure that the same could be said of a great many other Conservative Members.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I certainly did not take advantage of all the perks on offer to councillors, which were scandalous: that was a thing for Labour councillors to do.[Interruption.] May I offer a little advice to the hon. Gentleman? I must tell him and his colleagues, who are moaning and shouting, that if they had a good argument and put it nicely and constructively to the Secretary of State, he would accept their case. I did just that to save King's Park from the indignity of being part of Lanarkshire. Why not try that? Opposition Members should ask the Government nicely, reasonably and sensibly to consider their case. They might be amazed at the results.

Hon. Members: Just like Maastricht.

Mr. Hood: I would be flabbergasted, absolutely amazed or any other adjective that the hon. Gentleman might like to use. Will the Government withdraw this nonsense of the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Please."] After all, 95 per cent. of the Scottish people do not want it. Will they please withdraw it? That suggestion does not seem to work.
The hon. Member for Southend, East made an unfortunate remark about councillors' perks. These days, there are not many of them. In 1974—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the motion will bear the interpretation of councillors' expenses that is put upon it.

Mr. Hood: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
May I just say that, when a councillor attended a meeting of a water board in 1975, he received a £10 attendance allowance. In 1993, nearly 10 years later, councillors who attended such meetings barely received £10. To suggest that councillors still receive great perks is nonsense. One of the great disasters of local government is the fact that proper remuneration is not offered to those who are supposed to be accountable to the electorate for a council's work.

Mr. Wray: The Secretary of State got it wrong when he said that he would get half the required £52 million from the private sector. To date, he has received £2·5 million. The boards that will be established will do the same as the health boards: they will sell off all their assets and make the ratepayers pay for anything to do with water.

Mr. Hood: We have heard much from the Government about how the private sector will be funded. One has only to think of Crossrail, the channel tunnel and all the other wonderful projects to see that they have not come up with the goods.
Since I came to the House in 1987, a short time ago—it sometimes seems a wee bit longer—these motions have always confused me. They are always ambiguous. We have been asked to pass a measure that gives the Secretary of State a range of powers with which we do not necessarily agree. The measure is open-ended and allows him to do as he likes, without real accountability to the House.
Paragraph (a) says:
to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions".
What are "such sums", how are they worked out, and who will decide? Will there be an equation for working out that sum? Should we not be told what those sums are before we pass this measure? A few weeks ago, a money resolution mentioned "something like £4·6 million" but we did not know what the "something like" was. What does the term "such sums" mean?
This resolution will create a water tax that will provide revenue for the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, it will go into the Treasury's Consolidation Fund, not into investment to provide better services. Almost two years ago, the Government promised us all that they would not increase taxes. They told us that they were about cutting taxes but, as soon as they were re-elected, their policies were all about tax.
I need not remind the House that the Chancellor has admitted that the measures introduced by him and his predecessors were equivalent to a 7p increase in income tax. The Government used to say that the Labour party would spend, spend, spend. This Government tax, tax, tax, but they do not necessarily spend.

Mr. Pike: Does paragraph (a) mean that, if the motion is carried, water authorities in Scotland will be asked to produce not only income for investment and for their revenue expenditure but additional income for the Government's Consolidated Fund? As my hon. Friend says, it is a new source of indirect taxation.

Mr. Hood: That is exactly what I was trying to say.

Mr. Connarty: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the laws that govern the raising of funds for local authorities contain a clause that says that a local authority shall raise sufficient funds for the provision of its services. In the High Court judgment against Stirling district council when I was leader, the High Court judges said that that should be interpreted to read "only" sufficient funds as are required for the provision of its services.
Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange that the Bill says that this will have the boards raising more than sufficient funds—it states this clearly—


required by them for the exercise of their functions"?
Is it not an oddity that this Bill provides for the raising of additional sums other than those required for water and sewerage delivery? It should be explained by the Secretary of State, and possibly even withdrawn, so that they raise only sufficient funds for the purposes for which they are set up.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which was the second point that I was going to come to.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State now sitting in his place. The hon. Member for Southend, east said that, if I asked you nicely, you would respond much better to our representations. The hon. Member for Southend, East even suggested that, if I asked you nicely to withdraw this ridiculous proposal, you might do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman talking to me nicely—I can do nothing about it.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that if I asked you nicely, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might consider it.
Will the Secretary of State consider withdrawing this ridiculous measure which 95 per cent. of the people of Scotland do not support? [Interruption.] That is as nice as I can be. If hon. Members do not think that that is nice, they have not seen me being nasty. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) mentioned English Members, and I am thankful that one or two have arrived since I began to speak.
Much has already been said about Strathclyde. As a Member of Parliament, I have had my moments with many departments within Strathclyde regional council, but one of the most satisfactory departments with which to deal is the water and sewerage department. If one rings it about a problem, one gets an almost instant response. In addition, it provides a considerably cheaper service than any in England and Wales. It provides an excellent service at almost half the cost of that elsewhere, but we are discussing a measure that will destroy it all.
I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmon), but he made a valid point. He said that, at this stage, the Secretary of State was not talking about introducing legislation to cut water supplies, but I am sure that metering will lead to it. It has happened with electricity, so it will undoubtedly happen with water.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the taxation on water and sewerage authorities is set too high by the Government, it is likely that many more people will be disconnected? Such a method of taxation is likely to result in far more disconnections than would conceivably be the case otherwise, and is it not regrettable?

Mr. Hood: It is certainly regrettable and we should be taking action to impress on Ministers, preferably before they have gone too far, the true results of what they are proposing.
The resolution also deals with the area boards. I have already mentioned Strathclyde, and the excellent brief states that a west of Scotland water authority will have between six and 10 members. We are told that taxes or levies, whatever one wishes to call them, will be placed on the boards, and I wondered who would take part in the negotiations.
There must be two sides in a negotiation; one represents one interest and someone else represents the other. If a

member of a quango involved in the negotiation is also to decide whether one has a job, it makes the job of negotiating much easier. If the local authority represents the community, one expects it to resist the Secretary of State and argue its corner, but the result would not be the same if the area board was a quango appointed by the Secretary of State. If there is any disagreement, the Secretary of State will do what he did with the health boards—someone else will be appointed.
We have also heard about the consumer's interest, so let us consider the customers council. One would think that the customers council would look after the interests of the consumer and I am pleased to see that our expert on consumer affairs is here to listen to the debate. Who appoints the customers council?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Member that that does not relate to the motion.

Mr. Hood: I was explaining the contradictions in the negotiations between area boards and section (a) of the ways and means resolution.

Mr. Davidson: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the words in paragraph (a):
being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions"?
The Secretary of State could decide not only who to appoint to the board, but how much they should be paid. Presumably he would also be able to amend that payment during their time on the board.
By using that part of paragraph (a), presumably he could point out that the amount of money received by members of the board was not really required, and could therefore threaten them with a drastic reduction. That would give him another power: to compel them to agree with his evaluation of how much they should be paying in tax.

Mr. Hood: I think that we are hearing the analogy of the carrot and the stick—patronage or the sack. In fairness, I must come to the Secretary of State's defence for a moment. His history is not one of the stick. It is quite an enjoyable experience being sacked by the Secretary of State or the Scottish Office, because one is well looked after. When I was a miner in the pits, if anyone got sacked they were down the road with a part of the pay that they had earned on that day. If someone is sacked by the Secretary of State, they can get £80,000, a pat on the back and a wee mention in the new year's honours list, so he has a good track record of looking after his cronies.
To return to the resolution, because I have been tempted away, Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth of the matter is that patronage is a worrying feature. The vagueness of the resolution and the powers it seeks are also worrying.

Mr. Connarty: Is there not a more worrying dichotomy in paragraph (a)? If one of the functions that they have to exercise is investing in water and sewerage infrastructure and if the Secretary of State has an instruction, as is the case with other departments—the Post Office, for example—to find funds and such sums as he decides, he will be tempted not to place on the authorities the type of functions that we would wish, such as improvement of and investment in the infrastructure and in sewerage and water systems. That would lead not to more money to pay for those investments but to spare money, which would be returned to the Secretary of State. Those are the sort of grand pressures involved—the choice between investment


and paying back money on investments and giving back free money to the Secretary of State for some other purpose set by the Treasury.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. May I refer to the earlier debate about the cost of the reform? Perhaps some people in the Scottish Office think that they will understate the cost of the reform and make up for the deficit and additional costs by putting less hidden tax on the water consumer.
I am trying to come to the close of my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] My hon. Friends are so kind.
We are being asked to pass a resolution that gives powers to the Secretary of State—or whoever holds that office—and to faceless people in the area boards, and we are told that the customers council will look after consumers' interests. No Conservative Member has suggested that we will provide a better and cheaper service to the consumer. I hope that the Minister will try to answer those questions, among others, when he has an opportunity to respond to the debate.
Where will the real negotiation take place? Will it take place in Scotland, with the area boards with the Secretary of State? Will it take place in representations from the customers council, appointed by the same people—the same cronies who probably go to the same meetings at night and the same parties? Even worse, will all the decisions be taken in the Treasury, just across the road?

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that many of the decisions will be taken at social functions of the Conservative party? Is he aware that there have been many occasions on which appointees to health boards and the like have been with Ministers at party political functions on behalf of the Conservative party? Does he believe that it is a grave danger to the system of the water industry that might be established, that the appointments would not be above board; that they would be conducted solely within the ranks of a fund-raising event for the Conservative party?

Mr. Hood: That concern is not limited to the Bill. It has been expressed about much legislation that has passed through the House since I have been here. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have sat doing your excellent duty and listened to many concerns about that in special ways and means motions.
It is a bit of a cheek, is it not? I heard the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) speaking about 22 members of a council that employs 2,000 people as if it was a large number. The we consider what happens in appointments to boards—to health boards and to that enterprise board, to that local enterprise company—all patronage, all placepeople. When we talk about "back to basics", is it not back to common values, decency, things that one can trust? Is that what "back to basics" means? How can one trust the judgment of a person who is there to so-called represent one on a customers council or a health board, if that person is there by the patronage of a political appointment?
Surely, if we talk about decentralisation, whether it be in the case of health boards or whatever, we should have democratic elections—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—communities represented by people who are accountable to the community. Surely that is the way forward.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is beginning to take off again and is leaving the order far behind.

Mr. McAllion: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hood: Of course I will.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps I can bring my hon. Friend back to the motion before the House, and direct him back to schedule 7 to the Bill, which deals with appointments to the new area water boards. We find in schedule 7 that the Secretary of State has been empowered not only to appoint up to 11 members to those area boards, but to pay them such remuneration, such reasonable allowances, such compensation, such pensions, allowance and gratuities, as he and the Treasury think fit. In other words, among the sums which are required to carry out their functions in terms of the order is the function of the Secretary of State paying off his political friends by appointing them to the boards with big fat salaries, big fat remuneration and big fat allowances in return for political loyalty to him and his party.

Mr. Hood: Again my hon. Friend emphasises the vagueness of the measures. We could be talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds. We could be talking about millions of pounds. I could mention the recent fiasco—I do not want to dwell on it—of the Glasgow health board, and talk about the amounts that it has cost there. That was with one person only. There will be 12 people per board, and we do not know how much they will be paid.
I do not think that it is unreasonable for Members of the House who come here to pass legislation to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whatever Secretary of State it is in a measure such as this, what sum is involved. What will he pay the people who will be on those boards? What is wrong with asking that?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does that hon. Gentleman accept that, if we privatised water in Scotland, as we have done in England, we should do away with all the political patronage, which I think is quite shocking? Why do we not go the same way as England and go for water privatisation? We should then get rid of all the political patronage.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that one is better burnt than scalded. Are we being asked not to be scalded, but to be burnt? I pay twice as much in water rates for my one-bedroom flat in London as I do for my house in Scotland, where I get better, cleaner water. Yet the hon. Member for Southend, East recommends that we should go down the road of privatisation, despite all the troubles that is has brought to England and Wales. If the people of England and Wales were given the choice of going back to public ownership—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is broadening the debate. Some of the interventions are helping the hon. Gentleman in that respect, but they are not helping the Chair.

Mr. Hood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Pike: The resolution refers to other money. Could that reference be based on the assumption that the water authorities in Scotland will take action similar to that taken by North West Water? It does more to improve the water quality and to make profits in Kuala Lumpur than it does in the north-west.

Mr. Hood: That is obviously a great concern.
Conservative Members have accepted that the resolution is important. There are more hon. Members discussing the resolution at 1.21 am than there have been since 3.30 pm.

Mr. Home Robertson: English Members may be flocking into the Chamber because of the implications of the resolution in connection with clause 102. It provides for the supply for use outwith Scotland. It provides for the export of publicly owned water from Scotland for sale south of the border in England. Under the resolution, discriminatory charges could be applied on water that is exported south of the border. It could be subject to directions by the Secretary of State. More money could be raised from the exported water, which would be a tax on the people of England. I might think that that was a good idea, but I am not sure that Conservative Members would agree.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that my hon. Friend heard the excellent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others. They made the point that English and Welsh Members should beware. They will not escape the consequences of their party in England and Wales if the Government are allowed to get away with their proposals.

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there could be yet another Conservative fund-raising event? There was discussion between officials of Scottish Enterprise and officers of the Conservative party about the possibility of piping Scottish water to England and Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned Kuala Lumpur. Given that the channel tunnel is about to be completed, the scope for the export of Scottish water to the continent is considerable. Levies could be put on that water by the Secretary of State, which could price Scottish water out of the French and German markets. 'That would be a decision by the Secretary of State which would affect Scottish exports, which all of us would deprecate.
In my constituency, the Scotch whisky bottling industry is an important part of the local community's economy. If the whisky was to be marketed jointly with Scottish water—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member is given to overlong interventions.

Mr. Hood: I think that my hon. Friend made a good point.

Mr. Ingram: Would my hon. Friend accept some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) and relate them to the gas pipes that currently run all over Europe? If gas were not flowing through those pipes, water could flow in a reverse action. That could take water from Scotland as far as Siberia with some of the extensions that have been made in the gas distribution network, so we could easily find ourselves exporting water to Kuala Lumpur.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I suggest that he does not follow that path but returns more closely to the resolution.

Mr. Hood: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for rescuing me. I was trying to work out gas and water going different ways, and gave up.
Genuine concerns have been expressed about the power that the resolution vests in the Secretary of State. Even as hon. Members have expressed those concerns, the Secretary of State has been either studying the problem or he has nodded off. He is obviously studying the problem. I hope that, before the House rises, we may get a response. I do not think that that is unreasonable. The point that I made earlier about the appointments to the area boards and its ability to seek the power to pay remuneration, pensions and so on should be addressed. We should be given an idea of what those salaries would be.
I can remember, as I said earlier, the Tory members of Parliament who were defeated at the last election. I used to be represented by a Tory Member of Parliament when I lived in Nottingham for a few years. He was the Member for Sherwood, Andy Stewart, a farmer from Strathavon. I bumped into my former Member of Parliament, a congenial chap with whom I have quite a fair relationship. I said, "Hello, Andy, how are you doing?" And Andy said: "I'm busy. I'm the chairman of the agricultural board." I said, "Very good, Andy, well done."
One can bet a pound to a penny that the chairman of the agricultural board is paid a lot more after being kicked out by his constituents in Sherwood than he was when he was their Member of Parliament. In 1987—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not the time to engage in extensive reminiscences. The purpose of the resolution is much narrower than that.

Mr. Hood: I apologise if I transgressed from what I originally wanted to say. However, there is an inference of the powers being sought by the Secretary of State in the resolution, of which I gave an example.

Mr. Gallie: Which was irrelevant.

Mr. Hood: It was not irrelevant. Such information should certainly be supplied to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Davidson: Will my hon. Friend comment on the amounts that may be payable to the officers of the water board in those circumstances and tell us his view on how that compares with the amounts presently paid to elected councillors who presently sit on the boards of water boards?

Mr. Hood: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must tell him that, again, this is going wide of the resolution.

Mr. Hood: Much to your disappointment, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am coming to a close.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does not the hon. Member think, even as a socialist, that, if we sold our water with the same success as we sell our whisky, it would be of great benefit to his constituents and to all the people of Scotland?

Mr. Hood: I was in Athens a few weeks ago with my Select Committee, and was pleased to learn that Greece imports more Scotch whisky than any other country in Europe. I am sure that it would import Scottish water if it was available. Water privatisation and area boards are not necessary for that, when local democracy controls services.
I hope that the power sought in the resolution is given to the Standing Committee, because when the Government


are proposing measures that do not have the support of 5 or 6 per cent. of people in Scotland, it is important that they give the facts and figures to back up their argument. We have already shown that the Government's assessment of the costs of the Bill is much lower than its true cost. We suspect from our discussions tonight that they may use a water tax to meet the deficit. If the Secretary of State and his Ministers disagree, they should come up with the facts.

Mr. Home Robertson: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 73(7), which deals with charges schemes? It says:
A new water and sewerage authority, in making a charges scheme and the Customers Council and the Secretary of State in considering whether to give approval to such a scheme, shall endeavour to ensure that no undue preference is shown, and that there is no undue discrimination.
The charges scheme will include a surcharge—a tax—that is supposedly subject to the consent of the customers council and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is it not incestuous for the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell the new water authorities to impose a surcharge on water so that he can put money back into the consolidated fund while posing as the safeguard of the public interest in preventing water charges from going too high? Is it not odd that he is trying to have it both ways?

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual excellent way. We have heard similar concern tonight, but if the Secretary of State knows the sums that he is seeking to spend, he should let the House know. If he does not know, he is incompetent and should not hold his position. I have my own views and disagreements with the Secretary of State, but I believe that he has the figures, and we should know what they are. If he cannot give them tonight, I am sure that my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee will pursue the matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have reminded the House, this is a—

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been waiting since 3.30 pm to make a contribution. Would it be appropriate for me and my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Canavan) to be called before the Minister replies? Is not that the normal procedure in debates of this kind?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. The Minister has been asked a number of questions and he will now have the opportunity to reply.

Mr. Ingram: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to come into conflict with you in any way, but I have sat through the whole of this debate. I left the Chamber briefly to get something from the Library as a result of what was said during the debate and I wanted to make a contribution in relation to that. Although I recognise your powers, I feel that there are matters that remain to be raised which the Minister should be required to answer. I would welcome your ruling on that point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that it is within the discretion of the Chair. Many hon. Members have intervened and have had an opportunity—

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order on that matter. I have made the point.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear all points of order at once.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can the debate continue after the Minister has spoken?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, it can.

Mr. McAllion: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the debate is allowed to continue after the Minister has made his contribution, will he be allowed to answer the points made subsequently and to re-enter the debate at that stage?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That can be done only with the leave of the House.

Mr. Foulkes: On a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is not allowed to reply, would it be possible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the motion is tabled, to reply to the debate? My hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, for Falkirk, West and I have points to make. It would be unacceptable if those points could not be dealt with. It looks as though the Government are trying to railroad through this rather important measure.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to decide who will speak on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Stewart: As you have rightly reminded the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very limited motion. May I consider first the key criticism of the motion, namely the surrender of surpluses by the water boards to the Treasury. That is a standard form provision to ensure that, where genuine surpluses are generated, they are properly available to the public sector as a whole.
In all cases, of course, the needs of the industry will have the first call on revenue.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No, I want to explain the motion.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) asked about the meaning of
such sums as he may direct
and whether the normal financial regime would include such sums. I assure her that that is not the case. They will not be a key element of a normal financial regime. The provision will deal with a wholly exceptional situation should that arise.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked about the possibility of the motion allowing assets owned by local authorities to be taken from them. I assure him that that is not the case. The motion contains no provision that would enable the Secretary of State to require authorities to dispose of assets.
Hon. Members have raised many other points related to the motion to which we will no doubt return as the Bill progresses through the House.
This is a standard motion, there is nothing particularly controversial about it, and I therefore commend it to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Qustion put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 49.

Division No. 72]
[1.39 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arbuthnot, James
Faber, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fabricant, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bates, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Batiste, Spencer
Garnier, Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Gillan, Cheryl


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Booth, Hartley
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Harris, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Budgen, Nicholas
Hawksley, Warren


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clappison, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David





Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Luff, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Malone, Gerald
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Sweeney, Walter


Mills, Iain
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Norris, Steve
Trend, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Walden, George


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Ray


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Robathan, Andrew
Willetts, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Andrew Mackay and


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Derek Conway.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ingram, Adam


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Davidson, Ian
McMaster, Gordon


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Foulkes, George
Olner, William


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Graham, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Welsh, Andrew






Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.


Wray, Jimmy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 49.

Division No. 73]
[1.50 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Alexander, Richard
Faber, David


Amess, David
Fabricant, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkinson, David (Bout'mouth E)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
French, Douglas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gale, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Gallie, Phil


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, Sir George


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garnier, Edward


Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Batiste, Spencer
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst, John


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Booth, Hartley
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, Andrew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowis, John
Hannam, Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Hendry, Charles


Butler, Peter
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clappison, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Congdon, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Conway, Derek
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dicks, Terry
Knox, Sir David


Dorrell, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan, Alan
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lidington, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lightbown, David


Elletson, Harold
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, David





McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Malone, Gerald
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Milligan, Stephen
Stewart, Allan


Mills, Iain
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sykes, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilshire, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.


Sims, Roger



Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
McAllion, John


Barnes, Harry
McAvoy, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
McFall, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McLeish, Henry


Connarty, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davidson, Ian
Michael, Alun


Dewar, Donald
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Dononoe, Brian H.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Salmond, Alex


Foulkes, George
Skinner, Dennis


Fyfe, Maria
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wallace, James


Graham, Thomas
Watson, Mike


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Welsh, Andrew


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wilson, Brian


Home Robertson, John
Worthington, Tony


Hood, Jimmy
Wray, Jimmy


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Ingram, Adam
Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. Jim Cunningham.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Secretary of State to direct a water and sewerage authority established by the Act to pay him such sums as he may direct, being sums not required by them for the exercise of their functions, nor otherwise payable by them under or by virtue of any provision of the Act;
(b) to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State, otherwise than in repayment of any loans made by him, in consequence of any provision of the Act; and
(c) to authorise the payment into the National Loans Fund of any sums paid to the Secretary of State in repayment of loans made by him to any water and sewerage authority established by the Act.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Orders of the Day — REHABILITATION SUPPORT

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6625/93, relating to the European Commission's proposed rehabilitation support programme in developing countries; and supports the Government's policy towards the proposed programme.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Orders of the Day — FISHING FLEETS (CAPACITIES)

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6888/93, relating to the capacities of fishing fleets in the Community, and 7378/93 and ADD 1, together with the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th November, relating to the Transitional Guidance Programme; notes the Court of Auditors' criticism of Community expenditure on decommissioning; notes the measures taken by member states under their guidance programmes; and endorses the Government's view that, in order to conserve fish stocks, a combination of measures designed to regulate fishing effort is required.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Ordered,
That Mr. Alan Howarth be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Anthony Coombs be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Newspaper Ownership

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Richard Page: Let me begin my expressing my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, who will reply to the debate, and my regret that it is not taking place several hours earlier. Unfortunately, the peculiar and arcane procedures of the House must take their course.
I hope that I am pushing an open door tonight. I am well aware of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage at today's lunch, when he addressed the Media Society on cross-media ownership; I have obtained a transcript of his words. I believe that the door is beginning to open, but I hope that what I say tonight will help to push it a little further ajar, allowing some recognition of the changes that have taken place in the world of the media. I hope that those changes will be reflected in the ownership of the various bodies that have an opportunity to provide the British public with news and entertainment.
I often feel that parliamentary legislation is somewhat similar to fighter aircraft. My hon. Friend may think that a rather peculiar analogy; but building a fighter plane means first having to design it—which means a lot of work on the drawing board—then building the prototype and testing it. Eventually, after a successful test, the designer decides to move into production. As soon as that first fighter comes off the production line, it is out of date, because a more modern version is waiting on the drawing board.
The same could be said of the Broadcasting Act 1990. When it was at the design stage, it was up to date; almost as soon as it became an Act, it was out of date.
I served on the Committee that considered the original Telecommunications Bill of 1983 and the subsequent 1984 Act. That legislation split the Post Office from British Telecommunications and allowed BT to operate in the private sector, along with the newly created cellular network and Mercury. At that time, none of us realised the speed at which the development of information technology would take off. We knew that we would change the scene, but we did not know that everything would alter at such a rate.
When we considered the Broadcasting Bill, none of us knew that satellite television would succeed. Murdoch was brave enough to invest millions of pounds in it every week, but there was hardly a queue forming to take over and compete in the satellite market. Only one other competitor then existed, but it soon fell by the wayside. Murdoch has now succeeded in that market.
At that time, there were few radio stations. One could listen to pirate stations, such as Radio Caroline; now there are more stations than one can shake a stick at. The same can be said of the cable companies. In 1990, the cable franchises were not taken up and only one half-viable franchise was operating in the United Kingdom. Now Britain has been cabled and those companies are taking a bigger share of the market. They are also moving into the voice telephony market. We have witnessed the growth in the development and use of fibre optics. If we allow BT to


use the twisted pair of wires that go into each home to provide further media communication, the market will expand even more.
When the Broadcasting Bill was enacted, the measures contained in it were reasonable. The game has changed, however, and the world has moved on. We must catch up. It is clear that the Government's policy for the media has, for understandable reasons, been unable to keep pace with the technological and cultural changes that have occurred.
It is imperative that state regulation does not harm the health of a vibrant United Kingdom industry. I therefore warmly welcome the broad review that my hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 Janaury and the thrust of his speech to the Media Soceity today. Nevertheless, I am concerned that changes must be made sooner rather than later, which is the theme of my speech.
Such is the pace of change in the industry, and the rate of advance of overseas competitors, that we do not have the luxury of a long gestation period. In just three years, the cross-media ownership provisions of the 1990 Act, have, frankly, become antiquated. At that time, it was thought reasonable to leave the ownership of satellites open, while placing restrictions on terrestrial broadcasting. As my right hon. Friend has said, then there was not a long queue of entrants to the satellite market.
The growth of new means of communication has begun to leave terrestrial services almost literally stuck in the mud. It is no longer tenable for their development to be artificially restricted. Newspaper owners are being prevented from making the investment that would bring about the important synergies. My greatest concern is that, although we have now reached a point when there is a broad acknowledgement of the need for our industry to be updated, there is no real sense of urgency.
The conflict in the Gulf provided the American Cable News Network with a golden opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of modern communication media. More recently, 60 ft yachts sailing around the world have been able to relay film from among the icebergs of the southern oceans straight to United Kingdom viewers, using digital compression. When one thinks of the length of time that it took for film to be relayed from the Falklands on to our television screens, some 10 years ago, one appreciates that the new developments are nothing short of miraculous. Those examples show how information technology has brought news and comment to the British people, in a manner undreamt of a few years ago.
Why should international media companies with full access to those technologies be allowed to transmit to the British people, whereas our newspaper industry is restricted to, at most, a 20 per cent. stake in any venture based on cable? Our newspaper industry is the envy of the world. It may not be the apple of the Government's eye at present, but I can think of nowhere else where individuals have such choice. However, for reasons that have no relevance in 1994, those newspapers are prevented from taking a serious part in the communications revolution that is under way.
In most other industries, the United Kingdom is a model of liberalisation to its European partners. It is strange, therefore, that we should choose to be more restrictive when it comes to certain aspects of the communications industry. Having led the way in enabling the provision of

cable services, we risk allowing that technological lead to dwindle away by refusing to allow the communications industry to evolve on the established base provided by our newspapers.
It is clear common sense that the benefits of integration between media sectors should not be denied to the industry. But, beyond that, the experience of recent years has shown that technological change and the growth of overseas competitors will wait for neither a lengthy review nor a slow implementation of liberalisation.
In a world where the creation of a global product that can be marketed to the largest possible audience is so important, the creation of media groupings will bring broad competitive advantages. It would be unwise to prevent United Kingdom newspapers from becoming the hubs of modern United Kingdom media groups. If we do not act to allow that desirable development, I am convinced that the decision will be taken for us, with the media industry that provides services to the British public becoming increasingly foreign dominated and owned.
On the other side of the coin, the development of our newspaper industry will be restricted, providing a service in a highly competitive market where there will be an increasing number of desirable alternatives. Restricted circulation will lead to mergers, closures and reduced customer choice—the very opposite of what we wanted to achieve.
The United Kingdom has a media ownership restriction brought on by information technology advances that have bypassed sectoral regulations. My Adjournment debate is entitled "the future ownership of newspapers", because I believe that, if the regulations are not relaxed, the number and spread of newspapers will be reduced. Why cannot television companies hold satellite licences from the Independent Television Commission—only 20 per cent. of a firm's shares? If a British company buys a television station anywhere in the world, why will it be disqualified from classification as a United Kingdom independent television producer? Even Associated Newspapers' 20 per cent. ownership of Westcountry means that it cannot become an independent producer. Why does national commercial radio restrict newspapers and holders of TV franchises to 20 per cent?
From 1 January 1994, the United Kingdom has the most liberal regulatory regime in Europe for foreign investors but the most restrictive for domestic United Kingdom competitors. Changes are needed quickly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on securing the opportunity to raise this most topical and important subject, and on his extremely well-informed and persuasive speech. He has raised some very important questions.
Last month, during the debate on the new ownership order, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage said that the Government would be keeping the ITV company ownership rules under review, and that they would consider the wider issues of cross-media ownership. Earlier this month, my right hon.
Friend announced that the Government would be reviewing the rules that restrict ownership between newspapers, television companies and radio stations.
The increasing convergence of technologies arid the recent developments within the international media market suggest that it is now right to re-examine the framework within which United Kingdom media companies are operating. Tonight's debate is therefore most timely.
As my hon. Friend knows, the review has been conducted as a joint exercise by several Government Departments, including the Departments of National Heritage and of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. The two lead Departments are the Departments of National Heritage and of Trade and Industry. Each will take the lead in the aspects of the review which fit most naturally with their wider responsibilities. Other aspects of the review will be carried out jointly.
The Government have invited, and would greatly welcome, contributions to the review from those operating in the various industries likely to be covered by it, and from others with an interest in developments in the media generally. Contributions should be sent by 25 February to Mr. Paul Wright, the head of the broadcasting, film and sport group in the Department of National Heritage.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 was an important step towards deregulating what had hitherto been a highly regulated industry. It was part of the Government's general policy of trying to remove unnecessary burdens on the operation of commercial enterprises. The aim of the Act was to increase diversity, choice and competition in the provision of broadcast services. It also set out to create a new pattern of broadcasting, making it easier to introduce many more new services.
The Act has enabled a huge range of services to be licensed. At one end of the scale, there are the terrestrial television services available throughout the United Kingdom and the new national independent radio services. At the other end, there are local delivery services to bring television and radio services to groups of 1,000 or more homes, via cable or microwave systems, and restricted service licences, which allow local events to be covered by temporary radio services in a limited area.
The main development in the United Kingdom broadcasting market since 1990 has been the growth in the number of satellite and cable services, and the growing audiences for them. The Independent Television Commission has licensed more than 70 such services. There has been heavy investment in new cable distribution systems, and cable companies are now offering telephony as well as programme services to their subscribers.
Meanwhile, the more established media interests, especially the press, are becoming concerned about the limited scope for expansion in their traditional spheres of activity, and now want to take part in the growth of new media services. The present regulations relating to cross-media ownership under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the subordinate legislation set out to limit the cross-ownership of larger established media interest and to prevent undue concentrations of media ownership in the United Kingdom.
The policy reflected not only the objectives of creative diversity and competition in the provision of services but the importance of having different, independent sources of news, information and entertainment, and thereby maintained freedom of speech and expression. Those

principles remain very important. However, we need to consider whether the current regulations are inhibiting the growth of broadcasting and other media activities.
Broadcasting is changing from a national and highly regulated activity to an international market. Services produced in one country can already be broadcast directly to audiences in other countries by cable and satellite. With new digital technologies, many more channels will be available. Five hundred television channels has been suggested as a possible figure by the end of the decade.
To fill those channels will need a lot of material. Some of it will come from well-established sources, which include television and radio programmes, films, videos, music, computer games, home shopping and information of all kinds from a variety of sources, including newspapers and news agencies, gathering information from all over the world.
Many services will provide output aimed at clearly defined audiences. There will be specialist services as well as those for sections of the general public. In the foreseeable future, people should be able to choose from a wide range of information, entertainment and education, to which they will have direct access. They will be able to pay for items as well as for whole services. Traditional broadcasting, with schedules of different types of programmes, may be a small part of that multi-media work.
A great deal has been written during the past few months about the convergence of broadcasting, telecommunications and computer technologies. At this stage, there are uncertainties about which of the many technical options will be taken up by the public and emerge as the market leaders. Successful developments may not be the most technically advanced. They are perhaps more likely to be those that people find easy to use and which evolve most naturally from their present modes of receiving information, entertainment and education. However, we can be confident that some of the services will he interactive and that there will be profound changes in the present methods of distributing material of all types.
Those changes in the methods of distribution are likely to result in changes in the formats of the material to he distributed. There are already some systems which allow people to decide which of several camera angles they wish to select when watching a television replay of a sporting event. Information, which in the past would only have been available in a printed form, is already available on audio and video cassettes and discs. Computerised encyclopedias include not only capabilities for sophisticated searching of the contents, but also complex visual images and sound extracts, for example extracts from speeches or pieces of music.
It is quite possible that we will be able to receive the latest news in our homes when we want it, in a form which combines written text, sound extracts and moving visual images. It could be a combination of a newspaper and magazine, radio or television news bulletin. People will be able to select which sections they wish to receive and in which form.
It is obvious that, if maximum advantage is to be taken of the developing opportunities, it makes sense to think in terms of developing multi-media services, which can use the various means of production, communication and distribution, either separately or together. It that is to be done effectively, it may well make sense to develop partnerships between those now operating in different sectors. Major media organisations are already combining


in groups of linked enterprises, with partners in different countries, to co-operate in media production and distribution both nationally and internationally. We want to ensure that there are no unnnecessary restrictions to prevent United Kingdom media organisations from playing a full part in those developments.
Some of the developments have happened much more quickly than we expected a few years ago. That is why the Government believe that it makes sense to take a wider look at the present restrictions on cross-media ownership.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the rules restricting joint ownership of ITV companies, Channel 5, radio licences and newspapers are contained within schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and in the Broadcasting (Restriction on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, and the 1993 amendment. The Act and the Order also limit the holdings of newspapers in broadcasting services.
National newspaper proprietors are limited to up to 20 per cent. holdings in Channel 3, Channel 5 or local radio licences, but there are no restrictions on newspaper proprietors holding in non-domestic satellite services or licensable programme services. Local newspaper proprietors may not hold more than 20 per cent. in channel licences, which serve an area that is significantly the same as that served by the newspaper. Nor can the proprietor of a local paper hold more than 20 per cent. of a local radio or cable television licence serving an area that is significantly the same.
Links between local newspapers and local radio stations are in practice often quite strong, but extensive cross-ownership might—I stress that word—increase the risk of local media monopolies in the independent sector. Those are among the issues that we shall want to consider. We shall also wish to review the joint ownership of ITV companies, the ownership provisions on radio stations and ITN and the provisions on newspaper mergers and the Fair Trading Act 1973. Indeed, it should be made clear that the review will take a very broad look at all cross-media issues.
We must keep an eye on wider European developments. In December 1992, the European Commission launched a Green Paper on pluralism and media concentration in the internal market. The Commission set out suggestions for

the way forward, from doing nothing to much greater harmonisation of approach throughout the European Union. Plurality of ownership does not necessarily result in increased choice for viewers, listeners and readers. Equally, experience in the United Kingdom during the past 20 years suggests that, even where there is some concentration of ownership and control, there continues to be some variety in the strands of output whether by newspapers or broadcasting channels.
On the other hand, there is understandable concern about too great a dominance by a group or small number of groups of media interests. For example, hon. Members have in the past often expressed anxiety about the position of News International in the United Kingdom, as well as News Corporation worldwide.
Concentration of media interests can restrict access in a number of ways. It can, for example, limit the choices available to those who wish to advertise goods and services. It can increase costs by limiting competition. Concentrations of ownership could also restrict freedom of expression, making it more difficult for those with unpopular views or new ideas to reach the public. The review will have to take full account of those anxieties. We do not underestimate their importance.
The next 10 years are likely to be a period of rapid evolution. We want United Kingdom media industries to expand in the United Kingdom and overseas, but that expansion must not be achieved at the expense of viewers, listeners and readers at home. People in the United Kingdom are used to home-grown, original broadcast programmes and a wide variety of newspapers and magazines. That should continue.
The review will reconsider cross-media ownership issues in the context of fundamental changes that are taking place in the media industries throughout the world. The review will consider the current ownership restrictions for broadcasting and the press, to see whether the current rules do or do not strike a satisfactory balance. The review will take into consideration the need for diversity and choice for audiences, while encouraging the United Kingdom interests to play an active part in national and international markets.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Two o'clock.